CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations

[flying-spike]

My heart goes out to all those affected by this action and I would suspect that there would have to be fire where CASA thinks there is smoke however a cynic might say that CASA believes that they are the barrier to Aviation and there isn't room for another.
I hope they are back in the air as soon as possible and as safely as possible.
Safety authority grounds Barrier Aviation- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/12/23/237856_local-news.html)

[come fly]

About time that dodgy operation got grounded. Hopefully CASA are doing the rounds and couple more get whats coming.

[Nose wheel first]

From the CASA website.... the media release has just been put up...

Barrier Aviation operations suspended

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has suspended the operations of Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd with immediate effect from 23 December 2012.
This action (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101306#) has been taken because CASA believes permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
CASA believes Barrier Aviation has been operating aircraft with serious and known defects.
CASA has evidence of Barrier Aviation directing pilots to fly with serious and known aircraft defects, as well as not recording those defects on aircraft maintenance documentation when the defects became known.
The suspension follows an audit of Barrier Aviation which revealed a range of maintenance related deficiencies.
Further investigations by CASA uncovered additional maintenance issues.
The suspension is in force immediately for an initial five working days, during which time CASA must apply to the Federal Court for an extension.
If the Federal Court supports CASA's application, the court can continue the suspension for a period of time which will allow CASA to finalise investigations of all relevant matters. Whether the suspension continues beyond that time would depend upon CASA's findings.
Barrier Aviation is a Cairns based charter, aerial work and flying training air operator.
Operations are conducted from Cairns, Horn Island, Darwin and Gove.
The inconvenience this action will cause for passengers and Barrier's employees is regrettable, especially at this time of year. In all cases and at all times, however, CASA's primary and overriding consideration is safety.

[megle2]

Issued on a Sunday, isn't that a bit odd, 2 days after Casa have supposedly closed for the festive break. Did Casa work yesterday or did something else happen since Friday

[Mach E Avelli]

I don't think there is any conspiracy here. The tone of the press release uses words like " evidence" so I am guessing that their legal counsel has been putting in overtime to get them grounded before the Christmas break rather than go away knowing that the risk is there.
The only up-side to this is that flying demand in the Torres Straits won't disappear because one company gets shut down. Some operator will benefit. However to do that they will need staff, so pilots familiar with the area will probably just have to wear a different uniform in the new year.

[that guy]

Come fly -

I don't know what operation you're talking about but from all of my experience with the folks at barrier you couldn't be more wrong.

Another juvenile and cowardly act by casa, submitting this on a Sunday ( let alone 2 days before Xmas) they should be ashamed. I hope for all the innocent parties involved that this is resolved quickly as it should be

[Frank Arouet]

Issued on a Sunday, isn't that a bit odd, 2 days after Casa have supposedly closed for the festive break. Did Casa work yesterday or did something else happen since Friday

Now this is different. Somebody at fort fumble is either working sanctioned overtime or doing it on their own bat. Probably no dustcap on a tyre.

Curious indeed.

Merry Christmas to the delegate.

[rutan around]

The release uses words like 'evidence'
This is a rumour network and rumour has it that the company has been suspended by a gent that has the unlikely nickname 'Captain Dustcap' So diligent is he in chasing errant pilots with missing tyre tube dustcaps that some pilots are said to carry a few in their pocket whenever he's about. No doubt he has evidence Barrier has had numerous cases of missing dust caps and has exceeded it's quota. This is serious and has nothing to do with CD earning triple time and a half all over xmas and as a bonus avoiding all the invading rellies that visit at this time of the year.
RA

[come fly]

THAT GUY

Mate your just another naive chump, who can't see the big picture. The way management did business there was shocking, forcing their pilots to fly just to get the job done. This is long over due and who cares what time of the year it is, they potentially saved a couple lives before the years end.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The suspension is in force immediately for an initial five working days, during which time CASA must apply to the Federal Court for an extension.
If the Federal Court supports CASA's application, the court can continue the suspension for a period of time which will allow CASA to finalise investigations of all relevant matters. Whether the suspension continues beyond that time would depend upon CASA's findings.

I was previously going to post did anybody get a Xmas eve fax!

The 23rd is interesting maybe cynical timing. I'm sure there is going to be just enough time on the 24th for the application to the Federal Court. It gives Barrier Aviation little time to respond, understand issues, plan how to rectify and get legal representation.

CASA would be a little more respected if there were not these issues arising on Friday afternoon, Xmas and Easter. There appears to be a pattern and adversarial approach.

[Trent 972]

About time that dodgy operation got grounded. Hopefully CASA are doing the rounds and couple more get whats coming.
Hey comefly, you must be the smartest guy in the room, after all you've been around for almost 6 years now.

8th Feb 2007, 19:56

Posted By come fly

hi there,
i just finished my trainging with GFS last year to comercial stage.

Any half decent investigator could discover who you are, and perhaps BA might ask you to help pay their legal fees to fight this absurdity.
ps
1. Learn how to spell, dipstick.
2. Please have a go back at me, I need the laugh.
3. Farkwit

[come fly]

That's all you got, "learn how to spell". You had 3 points listed, fill them in.

[romeocharlie]

Clearly feeding the trolls here but as someone that has been around longer than a few years Trent, I've got plenty of experience in the north and back up the grounding 100% if conditions haven't improved in the last couple of years. I'm terribly sorry to the pilots involved now - horrible Christmas prezzie - good luck gents. I do hope the doors re-open with a safer operation.

[Old Akro]

Fax machine must have broken. Had it fixed by a private contractor then the fax transmitted from the memory.

Seriously, it makes CASA look like they have no process.

[Trent 972]

come fly
Hover your mouse over #3. for the full text. :E

rc, do yourself a favour and find out how long ago the audit was.

...This action has been taken because CASA believes permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety

I'd hate to be hanging by my testes while casa considers taking 'immediate action'

fpvdude- It's more about being Open and Fair. This action smacks of bastardry.

[that guy]

Hey come fly
thanks for the mature, balanced and reasonable response :-/ clearly you had a bad experience. but you are tarring a lot of people from 5 bases over two states with the same brush. Any How I don't feed trolls so all the best buddy...

[Tidbinbilla]

Play nice kids, don't feed the troll, and enjoy the festive season :ok:

TID

[Nose wheel first]

An interesting and very valid point you raise regarding the whole VFR in IMC issue in the Straits slam_click. I note with interest that CASA have only cited maintenance issues for the grounding, not anything else.

fpvdude, what slam says is true unfortunately. It seems not everyone flying around Horn has read those history books you allude to.

[Josh Cox]

Having worked for more than a few operators in GA, Barrier was the best I had the pleasure of working for.

I'd reckon this has more to do with CASA than Barrier, I'd reckon Barrier was number two on a special list, and two days before xmas, shameful.

I'm with "that guy", Dave, Cher, Sue and crew, awesome people.

Come Fly, you're a nasty little man, I hope I never meet you.

Good hunting Barrier.

[lostwingnut]

The suspension follows an audit of Barrier Aviation which revealed a range of maintenance related deficiencies.

Wasn't there an audit back in April or May this year?
Thats a good solid seven months ago!

This all seems a bit odd, why would CASA wait so long?
...... poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety.

Seems like someone is playing games waiting to issue a notice on the Sunday a couple days before Christmas. Is this normal for CASA? Has a familiar tone to Hardy's a couple weeks ago getting a letter after 5pm on a Friday.

Does anyone know if this effects the whole of Barrier, or are the four or five bases all run separately on different AOC's?


Lost (in the regs somewhere)

[parkland]

The fact CASA acted on a weekend before Christmas might indicate the issues were in fact serious. Just a thought.

[Two_dogs]

Josh,

I'd reckon Barrier was number two on a special list,

Who is number one?

[VH-XXX]

Nobody FORCED you to fly your MECIR test on an expired MR. You CHOSE to do that yourself by conducting the flight. If what you say is indeed correct (no reason to doubt you) that would show up in the audit (hopefully) and appropriate action would go against them and CASA would then come looking at you for answers if you were the PIC. Better find a good aviation lawyer. Ignorance left the building as an excuse once you got your GFPT.

[VNAV_PTH]

"If what you say is indeed correct (no reason to doubt you) that would show up in the audit (hopefully) and appropriate action would go against them and CASA would then come looking at you for answers if you were the PIC."

VH-XXX,

Why would a MECIR Test Candidate be the PIC? And in any case, in the (alleged) situation, why shoud it be the candidates responsibility to refuse to conduct the flight? Obviously, you would be wise to do so, but having forked out circa 15k, and being naive, you can understand how he/she might have gone along with it. What about the organisation? Duty of care?

A student or test candidate of any organisation should never have to be the last line of defense in ensuring the flight is conducted legally.

"Better find a good aviation lawyer. Ignorance left the building as an excuse once you got your GFPT."

Pull the other one champ. :D

[Trent 972]

Don't be too hard on him xxx.
By his own admission he's been pressured since then as well, poor dear.
He's a victim. It's not his fault. Somebody made him do it. :{
beaver_rotate 1st Apr 2012, 22:57 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/481455-elwood-melb-skydiving.html#post7112091)

Am I a liar too? I too have worked for 2 skydive operators where I was pressured to fly VFR into IMC (tropics and the big wet). Yes I did t and YES I ain't proud. The words when I burred up "if you don't do it I've got a 100 resumes of guys who will" come to mind. I guess I was selfish and young and only had my aspirations in mind...

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Interesting Hardy's lawyers were able to challenge casa in the federal court. I just wonder if casa are trying to make that as difficult as possible this time?

Of course there always is the real possibility an immediate safety risk did/does exist.

NT airline to resume flights after CASA challenge - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/hardy-aviation-challenges-casa-grounding/4427972?section=nt)

[Sunfish]

There is always a Federal Court Judge "On Duty" - theoretically available Twenty Four hours a day, every day of the year. If this is indeed a bit of holiday barstardry, then I imagine the judge can have his holiday interupted long enough for an injunction/stay to be issued.

Personally, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to CASA on the assumption that only a freshly discovered serous defect in Barriers maintenance system would prompt a rational institution to act on a Sunday so close to Christmas.

If, on the other hand, the grounding is the outcome of a long running investigation and following mature consideration of a range of evidence, then it is difficult to comprehend the zeal with which this matter has been pursued into the holiday season.

To put that another way; Scrooge, charity, peace and goodwill and all that Christmas stuff.

As for Beaver Rotates comments, I thank him for making them and if they are supported by evidence, then good on CASA for the grounding.

..And to VNAV and XXX, I say both your criticisms of Beaver Rotate are unhelpful and way out of order. The "double bind" problem (damned if you do and damned if you don't) is both real and deadly in a lot of industries. Even the most skilled of us have difficulty navigating around it at the best of times and to criticise an ingenue pilot for falling foul of it is just plain stupid.

Furthermore, there will be dozens of youmg wet behind the ears pilots facing exactly the same problem as the Beaver all over the country as I write this (5.19am) today, and tomorrow and tomorrow ever after. They need support and education from the pilot community, their only "crime" is being young and inexperienced and the last thing they need is blanket criticism from a couple of envious old farts.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Torres]

..................................

Interesting ....... is Barrier still owned and managed by an ex CASA FOI?

..................................

Cancel the question - answered in the affirmative in the following post.
..................................

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Cairns aviation firm grounded over 'safety risks'- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/12/24/237880_local-news.html)

Cairns aviation firm grounded over 'safety risks'
Andrée Stephens
Monday, December 24, 2012
© The Cairns Post


THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority yesterday suspended all operations by a Cairns-based charter company because of alleged serious safety risks.
The federal authority said it had evidence Barrier Aviation, which has a fleet of 34 aircraft, was operating aircraft with serious and known defects and was directing its pilots to fly with known aircraft defects.
The company is also accused of failing to record those defects on aircraft maintenance documentation when they became known.
A CASA pokesman said Barrier Aviation had been under investigation for six weeks, but more alleged maintenance problems had come to light in the "past couple of days''.
"There was an increased level of risk which was just too high," the spokesman said.
The five-day ban could stretch to another 40 days if the Federal Court agrees to extend the suspension while CASA carries out further investigations.
Managing director of Barrier Aviation, David Kilin, said the company was examining the suspension notification and would take legal advice on the matter.
"We will be challenging the allegations in the Federal Court," he said yesterday.
He said about 50 staff, including 37 pilots, would be affected by the suspension but the company had not had time to consider their options yet.
"We will also be notifying clients and helping them with alternative arrangements."
CASA acknowledged the timing of the suspension was "regrettable" for passengers and Barrier's employees, but its "primary and overriding consideration" was safety.
In its statement yesterday, CASA said:
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has suspended the operations of Barrier Aviation Pty Ltd with immediate effect from 23 December 2012.
"This action has been taken because CASA believes permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety."
Barrier Aviation provides charter services, aerial work and is a flying training air operator with bases in Cairns, Darwin and Horn Island.
It also offers interstate, international flights,scenic flights over the Great Barrier Reef, and the carriage of dangerous and difficult cargo throughout PNG.

[Defenestrator]

Interesting indeed Torres.

Given that the owner IS an ex CASA FOI, as well as an independent ATO, should any of the claims as to why the AOC was suspended be factual, surely it would be grounds to remove his licence, if not just the approvals, as his demonstration of 'fit and proper person' would be compromised.

D

[Torres]

I'm not commenting on CASA's actions but I do have a good memory. :ok:

He can hire his mate (http://www.rdcollins.com.au/profile.htm) to get him off the hook? :E

[VNAV_PTH]

"..And to VNAV and XXX, I say both your criticisms of Beaver Rotate are unhelpful and way out of order. The "double bind" problem (damned if you do and damned if you don't) is both real and deadly in a lot of industries. Even the most skilled of us have difficulty navigating around it at the best of times and to criticise an ingenue pilot for falling foul of it is just plain stupid."

Sunfish,

I was not criticising Beaver Rotete, quiet the opposite actually. I agree with your centiments wholeheartedly. Whilst the grounding could be called "bastardising", I have absolutely no doubt it was necessary. I only wonder why it's taken this long? Oh that's right, Torres has already answered that.

Oh and Trent 972, nobody cares.

[Mach E Avelli]

It is unlikely that they have been grounded because Captain Dustcap (whoever he is) pinged them for a few missing dust caps on tyres.
More likely there are issues outstanding from an audit that have run way past their due date for rectification, plus some other more recent findings.
By now CASA would have to be gun-shy about proceeding against an operator without hard evidence of naughtiness. On the other hand, CASA must be very nervous after a couple of recent fatal accident reports that indicate inadequate oversight on their part. Too many more of those and ICAO or the FAA could downgrade them to third world status. This would bring them down big-time.
The timing at Xmas may seem deliberate, but I doubt it. Simply a case of 'three strikes and you are out'.

[Josh Cox]

beaver_rotate, I call bull****,

I was forced to fly an aircraft with an out of date MR ON MY MECIR INITIAL FLIGHT TEST at Barrier as a STUDENT.

Trolls and Cairns Post... Feel free to quote me. Good riddance If you are telling the truth stand behind what you've posted, post your real name and contact details on this thread, I bet you don't.

Also, having had a look through your previous posts, I can't find you having said anything nice about anyone, why is that ?.

Two Dogs: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/502266-hardys-aviation-grounded.html

[that guy]

Mach- from a friend

Apparently any issues from the last audit were rectified in the given time frame and signed off by casa, this has seemingly magically popped up since the audit was completed

[VH-XXX]

..And to VNAV and XXX, I say both your criticisms of Beaver Rotate are unhelpful and way out of order. The "double bind" problem (damned if you do and damned if you don't) is both real and deadly in a lot of industries. Even the most skilled of us have difficulty navigating around it at the best of times and to criticise an ingenue pilot for falling foul of it is just plain stupid.

I can't believe what you are saying Sunfish, based on your normal moral high ground. So if you were driving a ferry up the Yarra at night would you turn off your Nav lights to save the filament in the bulbs and would you not say anything about it?

There is no such thing as being pressured to fly on an expired MR or to fly VMC into IFR - find another job or kill someone or your career. It's a very easy choice really. I can't believe anyone would defend someone in this situation. There are plenty of other operators out there who do do the right thing.

[flying-spike]

With regard to the timing. It is not surprising as, like a lot of organisations, CASA people try to "clear their desks" prior to the stand down because they don't want the unfinished business hanging over their heads while they are on leave.
If during that process matters come to light that don't give CASA personnel the peace of mind that they can trust the operator to operate safely then despite the impending stand down work goes on and the regulatory action is taken. I would not want to be the person in front of the coroner saying I held back because I was about to go on holidays.

Why, after audit deficiencies are "signed off" would further surveillance be done that highlights these deficiencies again? Precisely because the operator has assured CASA that the fixes are in place and that the problems won't happen again and has had a history of reverting to errant behavior. Then surveillance is done to see if the new process is in practice. If the problems are repeated the words "trust me I'll fix it" carry little weight and prompt the taking of stronger action.

Go back a few years and look at CASA's reasoning behind establishing the remote office at Horn Island. I would say that if that if the problems with this operator are proven then the decision to establish that office and maintain at least a part time presence there are vindicated.

[prospector]

Furthermore, there will be dozens of youmg wet behind the ears pilots facing exactly the same problem as the Beaver

One of the exams they all have to pass is regulations. If everybody refused to break regulations, and the operators knew nobody would break regulations, then these problems should not occur.

It is an accepted thing that in this industry there are times when the rules have to be bent due to unforeseen circumstances, but that is different from blatantly breaking rules "because if I dont I will be sacked", especially prior to take off.

[Mach E Avelli]

Flying Spike has hit the nail on the head. Added comment: Having had hands-on experience both within CASA and as a Chief Pilot, I have dished it out, and copped it. The audit process goes something like this:
Deficiencies found at audit and discussed with Operator. Non Compliance Notices issued with a 'drop dead' date for rectification (dates may not all be the same for each NCN, though usually are - it depends a bit on the Lead Auditor and what latitude he is granted by the 'system' and his own perception of the risk). Rectification not always completed to CASA satisfaction within the time frame. Extension granted. Heat on Lead Auditor from CASA boss to have it acquitted. Heat from Lead Auditor on Operator. Often, in the interest of a peaceful life back at Fort Fumble, and depending on the integrity of the Lead Auditor (believe me, that varies!) a half-baked solution or promise of a solution will be accepted.
Along comes another audit, or a snap surveillance, or an incident, or an authentic complaint/report from the public or an employee. Only to find the same or similar issues. Once it is a matter of record someone has to be seen to be doing something. And round and round it goes.

[my oleo is extended]

All very interesting. Barrier, Hardys, Alliagtor? A clean sweep around the northern end of Australia?
Having lived and worked in NT and FNQ for the past 12 years I can tell you that the aforementioned operators are not the only ones being closely watched by CASA, nor should they be the only ones either.
The Sunday grounding is most interesting indeed, has the paradigm moved and Friday at 16:59 is no longer the favored approach to pulling an AOC?

[anothertwit]

or an authentic complaint/report from the public or an employee.

Nail on the head. Not sure about the authentic part but the latter of the two seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. :ouch:

From a friend of a friend of a friend. it is a rumor site after all. lolz :E

Happy and Safe holidays folks. :)

[LeadSled]

I'm not commenting on CASA's actions but I do have a good memory. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
He can hire his mate (http://www.rdcollins.com.au/profile.htm) to get him off the hook? Torres,
Don't we all !!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Said old mate actually is quite busy in PNG right now??

[601]

why shoud it be the candidates responsibility to refuse to conduct the flight?

Who did the DI?
Surely the candidate should be the one doing the daily as part of the test.

If the a/c is not airworthy (expired MR, part of the DI check I would think) then the flight is cancelled, or don't they teach that anymore?

[heated ice detector]

Mr Gibson reported on abc as " we have got no faith that the aircraft are being looked after in the way that they should be"
Faith is an interesting word to use, maybe it's to do with mabo, you know the whole vibe

[601]

we have got no faith

I did not think "faith" painted on the Govt's radar.

I wonder how "faith" will stand up in court as a defence for canceling the AOC. Or will other reasons be brought forward.

[VH-XXX]

601 - common sense is no longer in the day VFR (or IFR) syllabus it would seem!

[Sunfish]

VH-XXX:

I can't believe what you are saying Sunfish, based on your normal moral high ground. So if you were driving a ferry up the Yarra at night would you turn off your Nav lights to save the filament in the bulbs and would you not say anything about it?

There is no such thing as being pressured to fly on an expired MR or to fly VMC into IFR - find another job or kill someone or your career. It's a very easy choice really. I can't believe anyone would defend someone in this situation. There are plenty of other operators out there who do do the right thing.

As to your first question, I am aware of a certain member of the judiciary who was driven at very high speed up the Yarra in an inflatable, at night, with lights off to avoid detection by Harbour control, wearing a dinner suit, to attend a function at a city club. He missed pre dinner drinks, Very James Bond. However that is not the problem....

The problem is "the double bind" where an employer has a formal culture of following the regulations, but an informal one of encouraging employees to break the rules to save money and punishing any employee who won't "go along". That puts the entire onus, if anything goes wrong or the infraction is detected, on the employee.

...And the first thing that happens when something bad happens is just what you said:"Why did you break the regulations, you should have refused", and the poor bastard says "but, anybody who refuses gets fired and I need my job!"". At which point the high and mighty owner says "no we don't we tell you to follow the regulations to the letter".

The CASA boys know this. Every ethics course teaches it. I am sensitive to it because I had it tried on me by Exxon, As a brand new engineer, I was responsible for an oil terminal, Twenty One million litres of highly inflammable petroleum products and Thirty Six road Tankers with F&*& all staff and budget for maintenance. The company had reams of manuals I was meant to follow, but no money was provided to do so. It took me Eighteen months to realise that I was set up as a patsy if anything went wrong, so I left and joined an airline where I thought people had higher moral and ethical standards than Exxon.


...and in general, with only Two exceptions, the airline was an ethical place.

[ozbiggles]

I don't think anyone really likes CASA, however
if any of the usual suspects here have any 'evidence' then there are plenty of avenues to take your case too to have CASA investigated.
Otherwise you remind me of people who get done for speeding. then whinge about the police, the courts, the law, traffic lights etc etc.
Is anything other than your bias fuelling your 'suspicions'?

[Mach E Avelli]

There may be plenty of other operators out there who do the right thing. But they must be somewhere else in the world because they are not too evident in Oz, sad to say. Of course the major airlines and a few of the regionals do the right thing most of the time. They have the finances to do this, and it probably helps that they don't face too much in the way of under-cutting competition. The good, compliant and ethical GA operators in Oz could probably be counted in single digits. I can only think of one extant and one now sold out.
At the bottom of the aviation food chain it is feral and anyone who believes otherwise probably still believes in Santa Claus.

[Torres]

if any of the usual suspects here have any 'evidence' then there are plenty of avenues to take your case too to have CASA investigated.

You jest Biggles? There has been reasonable grounds to investigate CASA's actions in a number of instances over the past twenty years, however no Minister for Transport or Government would ever allow that to occur. There is no practical avenue to hold CASA to account.

Leadie. I heard that. His move to PNG may raise the average IQ of both CASA Australia and CASA PNG. :}

[Allan L]

ABC News: Queensland-based airline Barrier Aviation will remain grounded until February next year over safety concerns.

Qld airline to remain grounded for months - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-24/court-extends-grounding-of-qld-airline/4442986)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Thanks Allan, for link to ABC article.
I trust casa has acted in the interests of safety. Xmas eve is a gd time to bury bad news and not get much or any adverse press attention.

I don't think anyone really likes CASA, however
if any of the usual suspects here have any 'evidence' then there are plenty of avenues to take your case too to have CASA investigated.
Otherwise you remind me of people who get done for speeding. then whinge about the police, the courts, the law, traffic lights etc etc.
Is anything other than your bias fuelling your 'suspicions'?

Yes, there is the senate inquiry for one. I'm sure the cases of Barrier and Hardy will be brought up there in February.

I agree damned if you do damned if you don't act. The senate has been asking why casa didn't act too.

My concern is there appears a real 'us and them' attitude and conflict between parties. I'm not sure this approach is working for safety in Australia?

[Josh Cox]

All the while the rumour running around FNQ has this being all based on the ramblings of a not so recently sacked employee, one who is having trouble finding another flying job.

[Dash8capt]

Guys I think out of respect for the employees if barrier, it would be best to post no further comments in regards to the operations past or present. I wish all the staff and pilots the best for Christmas and New year and hope that either what has happened is overcome or the staff move on to a brighter future in 2013.

[down3gr33ns]

I know someone pretty well who worked there for several years - it comes as no surprise.

[ringbinder]

no further comments in regards to the operations past or present.

Yes, let's all bury our heads in the sand!!!!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Extended till 15th Feb now.....unless...??

Bugger:uhoh:

[anothertwit]

All the while the rumour running around FNQ has this being all based on the ramblings of a not so recently sacked employee, one who is having trouble finding another flying job.

Guess nobody in GA wants to employ a dibber dobber. :confused:

[MCKES]

Yes, let's all bury our heads in the sand!!!!
No lets not bury our heads in the sand. Lets just watch what is being said on a public forum and how it may affect the staff of said company over what should be a stress free holiday.
Time and Place.

[that guy]

Amen to that!

This affects a lot of people, many of whom have absolutely nothing to do with the base in question and are innocent in all of this.

Anywho Christmas is drawing near, hope everyone enjoys it as best they can :)

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Ouch, the ole knifing your previous employer rumour.

A cautionary tale:

Heard a story, can not confirm its veracity, where an ex-employee went to the CAA, signed statements and went to court against a previous employer.

When the nature of the relationship between the company and ex-employee became apparent to the court, I believe the case was thrown out.

Confidential is only confidential until you are required to appear in Court, then everyone knows who you are.

I doubt very much that the ex-employee was ever able to find another job flying.

I hope its not true.

[PLovett]

Is it not the case that CASA will not act on the words of a disgruntled ex-employee as they maintain that the person should have approached them when they were first aware of the misdeeds of their employer, not after they had been dismissed?

It does tend to reduce the value of any testimony they may give.

[Trent 972]

Where did beaver_rotate's post Sh!tcanning Barrier, go?
I thought you wanted the Cairns Post to quote you.
Not so tough now eh big guy?

[Torres]

All the while the rumour running around FNQ has this being all based on the ramblings of a not so recently sacked employee, one who is having trouble finding another flying job.

Whilst we accept CASA staff are not the sharpest tools in the shed, even CASA is not dumb enough to suspend an AOC based on the ramblings of a disgruntled ex staff member. And they must have good cause, acceptable to the Court, for the Court to extend that suspension until February.

CASA's administrative action is a form of economic regulation - or financial strangulation. Ground the b@stards without trial long enough to break them financially!

I think every operator in the Torres Strait over twenty or thirty years since Thorpe's Air Taxis has either been killed off by CASA or left in disgust.

[caa]

CASA only have tools in the shed - But seems a far better legal team these days! Does not mean they are correct, just more resources.

[VH-XXX]

Lets be honest, what would acause CASA to ground an operator?

- Someone makes a complaint perhaps
- CASA investigate with some firm leads on where to focus perhaps
- Issues are found
- CASA take action and if bad enough, shut 'em down

Pretty simple really! In the end it doesn't really matter who dobbed on them if enough serious issues are found....

[GedStreet]

Look at it...

CASA takes down Barrier on hearsay.

GA you need a bulletproof SMS or you're next.

[Sunfish]

Trent 972:

Where did beaver_rotate's post Sh!tcanning Barrier, go?
I thought you wanted the Cairns Post to quote you.
Not so tough now eh big guy?

Beaver Rotate suddenly realized that a simple perusal by CASA of Barriers records of exactly who has done a MECIR on which aircraft together with the dates and associated MR will reveal the truth of his allegation and also his name. Barrier can do the same.

It is then up to CASA if they decide to prosecute Mr. Beaver, thus instilling into every GA employee even more "double binds". Considering that they will destroy a career on the evidence of a Youtube video, I would think that CASA may indeed act.

Double Bind A - do something dodgy or get fired by the boss.

Double Bind B - See something dodgy and shut up about it to avoid getting fired and get prosecuted by CASA instead if they find out that you saw something and didnt tell them.

WIth a little more work in spreading fear,uncertainty and doubt, every licenced employee of every GA outfit can be turned into a CASA stool pigeon. What a recipe for industrial harmony.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Barrier to safety removed in North Queensland skies | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/12/25/no-barrier-to-safety-in-north-queensland-skies/)

[Ixixly]

Does anyone happen to know whether the main concerns are relating to their operation as a whole or one base in particular?

[Josh Cox]

One point worth mention here, DK, the owner and Chief Pilot has owned and operated aircraft in FNQ for the best part of thirty (30) years, he has also been an ATO for at least ten + years.

barrier poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety = Frog excrement.



I'm glad beaver_rotate had the good sense to remove his/her post.

[VH-XXX]

With the utmost of respect, some said that about Barry Hempel too....

[Josh Cox]

Hi xxx,

I had never worked for barry, so can not really respond.

[Arm out the window]

What sort of 'serious and known defects' are they talking about, is anyone in a position to say?

[J3tt]

Interesting to note that their solicitor has confirmed that this action by CASA will impact on shipping pilots! My understanding is that they usually move one or two at a time, as do magistrate and quarantine etc. does this also mean they are selling individual seats on the "charter" flights they run up there?

Might be something else for CASA to look into!

[Hotpot]

Sad to hear that this has happen at such a bad time, I wish everyone effected by CASA's decision all the best for the future.

Barrier Aviation and the now defunct Falcon Airways, was there a connection in between both these companies? Someone mentioned something in a earlier post.

[Two_dogs]

Arm out the window ...

What sort of 'serious and known defects' are they talking about, is anyone in a position to say? Said aircraft are BN2 type ... :E

[27/09]

There is no doubt the regulator must act when there is good evidence of a breach of the rules.

However why is it theses breaches always seem to come to a head on a Friday afternoon or at a time when any grounding is going to have maximum financial impact for the company concerned. It doesn't give the "accused" a fair chance to defend their position. There's always two sides to every story.

With the over sight the regulator is supposed to be carrying out how can things get so bad so quickly that the operation needs to be shut down immediately? Surely there must be ongoing issues bubbling away prior to the complete shutdown, and deficiencies that haven't been addressed within a given time frame. Are some operators so hopeless they cannot get their stuff sorted or is the regulator trigger happy?

[Torres]

"However why is it theses breaches always seem to come to a head on a Friday afternoon or at a time when any grounding is going to have maximum financial impact for the company concerned."


"CASA's administrative action is a form of economic regulation - or financial strangulation. Ground the b@stards without trial long enough to break them financially!"

..................................

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

27/09 There is no doubt the regulator must act when there is good evidence of a breach of the rules.

However why is it theses breaches always seem to come to a head on a Friday afternoon or at a time when any grounding is going to have maximum financial impact for the company concerned. It doesn't give the "accused" a fair chance to defend their position. There's always two sides to every story.

With the over sight the regulator is supposed to be carrying out how can things get so bad so quickly that the operation needs to be shut down immediately? Surely there must be ongoing issues bubbling away prior to the complete shutdown, and deficiencies that haven't been addressed within a given time frame. Are some operators so hopeless they cannot get their stuff sorted or is the regulator trigger happy?

Totally agree. I think the senators need to consider the questions you have raised when they get back in February.

I understand there has been offices in remote areas since about 2010? So what has changed? Was the glass half full and now half empty. Is it the move from a small 'r' regulator to the capital 'R' regulator. Byron to McCormick? New regulations and how applied? Maybe SMS? Delegated responsibility to industry?

[Sunfish]

Good point HMHB, I wonder what has changed so drastically that it was necessary to ground the airline at the point of "maximum financial impact" or perhaps "maximum delay in response time".

Or are we simply just talking coincidence here?

Do we perhaps have a problem in that CASA's regulatory approach is so totally hamstrung by law and regulation that its only response to a perceived safety threat is to go for the jugular and try and bankrupt the offender as quickly as possible and before they can drag CASA through the courts at great expense to the taxpayer?

If that is the case, then giving more powers and discretion to CASA might be a good thing for the industry so that CASA has more tools available and isn't forced to rely on the blunt instrument all the time?

Of course the other way to deal with that might be to add a "get out" clause in the preamble to the legislation as well as the legislation itself to qualify CASA's duties regarding safety so that they are not seen as "absolute" but "commercially reasonable" and consistent with a goal of fostering the industry.

That would give CASA a defence in case of accident that their approach was consistent with international best practice and remove the option of achieving GA safety by simply killing it. That would remove the regulatory approach cynically described as "empty skies are safe skies" since CASA would no longer has an absolute duty of care to passengers and apparently no care at all for the industry,

Of course that would then remove the CASA absolute defence that makes the AAT Commissioners stand to attention and salute every time its used by CASA - the appeal to a bald and unqualified "Safety".

Perhaps this quote might be relevant in this regard:

‘The Health and Safety Executive says it is fed up with being cited as an excuse for preventing people from taking reasonable risks as they go about their lives. The organisation’s chairman Judith Hackett told BBC Breakfast it is time for people to stand up to ‘jobsworths’ who wrongly use the health and safety mantra as a barrier to common sense.

............ Mr Hoban’s remarks come after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that the rules are often being wrongly applied or used an excuse.

The HSE looked at 100 cases, and found that in 38, health and safety rules were simply being used as an excuse for unpopular decisions. In more than a quarter of cases, the rules had simply been wrongly applied
’

Mothers needlessly banned from heating up baby food by health and safety jobsworths, Government says - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9764038/Mothers-needlessly-banned-from-heating-up-baby-food-by-health-and-safety-jobsworths-Government-says.html)

Should CASA be required by law to use common sense?


I and perhaps the Senators might also like to assure themselves that CASA has not decided that its in its interest to deal with fewer but larger operators, and has taken a confidential decision to make it difficult for new players to enter the industry whle forcing others to leave or amalgamate. Unvarnished statistics about the GA industry (excluding RAA and SAAA) might prove illuminating on this matter.


.....and to cover the Sunfish backside, it may well be that Barriers transgressions are major and inexcuseable and CASA had given them plenty of time to straighten up and fly right, but what would I know?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

even CASA is not dumb enough to suspend an AOC based on the ramblings of a disgruntled ex staff member

Come on Torres, I know you are not naive.

There are very very strong rumours about this being over a poison pen statement / letter, of one previously sacked and disgruntled Horn Island employee.

This person comes with a rumoured history, a rather negative one from NZ, PNG and now Australia.

I get the feeling there is going to be egg on a number of faces over this.

[Defenestrator]

Some of you blokes make me laugh. I'd lay money that you'd be the types that would get picked up for speeding by the police, argue the point when there is no doubt it was you. Take it to court, where the fine would be upheld, then call the coppers for every name under the sun because:
A. You'd been doing it for thirty years and never been caught;
B. Because you have no grasp on the reality of the dangers of your actions;
C. You don't like coppers.
The suggestion that CASA would flippantly suspend an AOC is absolutely ludicrous. Likewise that they would do it without hard and substantial evidence. None of you, including myself, know the history behind the suspension. Everything else is speculation. It doesn't matter whether they've been in business for a week or 50 years. The result is the same. If you're non-compliant sooner or later you can expect to be reined in. For all any of us know this has been going in for a very long time and many of us have had our suspicions.

CASA has a job to do as does every other regulatory division of government. I'd hazard a guess that they've learnt a trick or two along the way to stop wayward operators slipping through their fingers through legal loopholes. If CASA have it wrong I hope the lawsuit and damages claim is extensive.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Defenstator,

Your last post would have to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.

Sure nobody likes being booked, but doing 80 in a 60 zone is pretty clear cut.

Have you considered being compliant is not black and white ?, that one FOI or AWIs interpretation of a piece of legislation can be so drastically different to the next FOI or AWI.

Have you considered a great deal of information published and enforced by CASA has no actual legislated head of power, i.e. they couldn't enforce it in a court of law if they chose too ?, manuals of standards (MOS), AOCM, CAAP for example, there are plenty more, so they don't take it too court, more often than not they do exactly what Torres suggested:

"CASA's administrative action is a form of economic regulation - or financial strangulation. Ground the b@stards without trial long enough to break them financially!"

So having been in the industry for thirty years is irrelevant ?, sounds like the kind of thinking that sees bare licenced pilots in the right hand seat of a jet and captains with bare ATPLS as OK, do you see it this way ?.

Someone mentioned Barry earlier, dead men can't defend themselves, but of the several thousand of pilots he trained, a very very very very large number of them speak nothing but praises, irrelevant ?, I don't think so.

The suggestion that CASA would flippantly suspend an AOC is absolutely ludicrous.

Perhaps Torres is best qualified to answer that one.

[Socket]

I get the feeling there is going to be egg on a number of faces over this.

Yours for one. Do you think CASA fronted the Federal Court to have the suspension extended with no more evidence than a disgruntled ex-employee's complaints?:ugh:

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Socket,

Go read the media releases, they asked for more time to finish their investigation, does not sound like any evidence was presented, examined or cross examined.

CASA made the application to the Court because investigations into Barrier Aviation will not be completed by the end of the initial five working day suspension period.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Move to extend Barrier Aviation suspension (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101307)

How do you take your eggs :) .

[Car RAMROD]

Barrier Aviation and the now defunct Falcon Airways, was there a connection in between both these companies? Someone mentioned something in a earlier post.

Yes. Simple googling will provide information


disgruntled Horn Island employee.
Ever been there? The place is a hole, nobody escapes with the same amount of sanity that they arrived with.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Horn Island a hole ?, try Oombulgurri, Doomadgee, Kowanyama, Ringers Oak, Leigh Creek, Burketown, Hells Gate or Fitzroy Crossing ( there are many more names that deserve to be on this list ).

Horn Island is a holiday destination in comparison.

Hating a place, doing your time and being glad to leave is one thing.

Leaving and committing professional suicide is another.

[LeadSled]

14 Objectives of Minister


The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—

(a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and
(b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.



14A Functions of Minister


The functions of the Minister under this Act are—

(a) to promote safety in civil aviation:
(b) to administer New Zealand's participation in the Convention and any other international aviation convention, agreement, or understanding to which the Government of New Zealand is a party:
(c) to administer the Crown's interest in the aerodromes referred to in Part 10 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM218567):
(d) to make rules under this Act.



Folks,
The above is S14/14A of the NZ Civil Aviation Act 1990.
I suggest our Kiwi cousins are a lot smarter than we are, aviation wise, the above is a very significant example.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Shed Dog,
MOS are disallowable instruments, they are enforceable. Effectively a third tier of legislation.

As for the AOCM, this is treated as a holy text, to be worshiped and revered by it's priestly class, the FOI, and like most such holy texts, its meaning is whatever the local high priest decrees.

-----but don't forget, your "accepted" Operations Manual is enforceable, even bits that you had to include, although there was no legal head of power to require their inclusion, but no AOC if you didn't see the error of your way, and voluntarily submit to the "higher orders".

Tootle pip!!

[Defenestrator]

Shed Dog,

This thread has eluded to alleged details of aircraft being flown with known defects and a culture within said company of pressuring pilots to do so. From what i can glean from media releases this is one of many reasons the AOC was suspended. Pardon my 'ignorance' but given your robust knowledge of regulatory process, please point out to me where in the legislation this is acceptable. If it's your opinion that this is acceptable then it's you my friend that is ignorant not I. You can sight all manner of failings on CASA's part but at the end of the day the 'speeding ticket' will stand. The rest of the nonsense you rebutted with isn't worthy of comment.

D :rolleyes:

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Defentrator,

Allegations are exactly that, allegations.

Barrier has not been found guilty of anything, just an allegation/s.

So the speeding ticket comparon is idiotic, barrier has been arrested, yet the police do not yet have sufficient evidence to lay charges or present a case, so they've requested no bail and another six odd weeks to investigate. Does this sound fair to you.

History teaches us that, as torres suggested, casa is finacially strangling the company.

So the whole concept of innocent until proven otherwise does not appear to be the case, does it?

The only information that appears to have been presented is the "imminent risk" statement, this has been used many many times.

Imagine in two or three months time, this is all proven to be caused by a vindictive sacked employee, yet barrier will have been without an income for three months, chances of survival get pretty small.

Again remember, no evidence has been presented and challenged, neither will it need to be until sometime in feb 2013, how would your household function with no income for three months?, bet your banker would not see the funny side of it.

There has been only one allegation on this thread about inappropriate behaviour which another poster called as BS and the poster then deleted ( beaver rotate i believe ).

There have been mutliple cases of disgruntled little pricks causing huge amounts of financial damage to companies as revenge for sacking or humiliation.

If you can not understand that, say hi to your friends in fairy land for me.

[Ramjet555]

It's a sad day when CASA shuts an operation down on the most critical day of the year.

The language of their press release sounds very carefully worded and very confident.

I've haven't been near Cairns in over 20 years but I'm guessing that lots of the well known names there 20 years ago are still around today.

Cairns has a corrupt element especially when it comes to Qld and Fed Government contracts. I recall some local cops having some very corrupt relationships and putting the competition out of action by any means was all part of the game that they played.

The press release talks about pilot reports, that would most probably be former pilots and when you operate in remote areas, grounding an aircraft at a remote location, is a nightmare for operators.

There are 365 days in a year, CASA chose the WORST DAY in the year and
it creates OPTICS that begs questions and CASA if its got it's act together, needs to explain, in its press release, WHY, it chose this day to ground their operation.

IF it was not a CASA coincidence, then why did "the pilots" most probably former pilots "wait" till December Xmass to make their call(s).

Their Fleet are typical of the charter that's been going on in Cairns for for the last 30 years and they are all relatively high maintenance airplanes and that's to be expected with that fleet in Cairns.

Regards

Ramjet

[Trent 972]

An AOC search for Barrier Aviation (http://casa-query.funnelback.com/search/search.cgi?collection=casa_aoc&querys=barrier+aviation&session=2112035076) shows that casa renewed Barrier's AOC on the 30th November 2012.

Search results AOC records

Holder Name: BARRIER AVIATION PTY. LTD.
Primary Trading Name:
Town/City: STRATFORD
State: QLD
Issued: 2012/11/30
Expires: 2013/05/31
Number: N516013
Operations: Aerial Work; International Operations; Charter (Flying Training, Charter under 5700 kgs)
Type of AOC: Australian
CASA Office: Northern Region CNS
AOC Holder Country: AUSTRALIA
AOC Application Status: Issued

What the hell happened that was serious enough to ground the whole company in the 22 days between 30/11/12 (when casa were happy to renew Barrier's AOC) and 23/12/12 when casa says "permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety"?

Smelling very fishy.

[justinga]

Is it really theworst time of the year for CASA to suspend the AOC, I flew up there a few years back and remember it being the very quite over Xmas with all the government workers in The Far North away on holiday. As 80% of government work goes thru one broker I'm sure there is plenty of other operators now pushing flight n duty and M/Rs to get the jobs done.

[Two_dogs]

AOC's are normally issued for a three year term.

Issued: 2012/11/30
Expires: 2013/05/31A six month AOC possibly means CASA were not quite happy ...

[Trent 972]

Two_dogs, is that another way of saying casa is happy to allow "a serious and imminent risk to air safety" for 6 months but not for 3 years?
I don't think so, but maybe casa do.
If so wouldn't that make casa "a serious and imminent risk to air safety"? :eek:

[Two_dogs]

Trent, No, just another way of saying CASA were not quite happy ...

A CASA pokesman said Barrier Aviation had been under investigation for six weeks, but more alleged maintenance problems had come to light in the "past couple of days''.

[Trent 972]

I see, just like "only a bit pregnant", but the obstetrician will be back in 22 days to check.
In the meantime cigarettes and alcohol will do the foetus no harm.....more alleged maintenance problems....
ok then, they decided to 'abort the foetus' even though it was only alleged.
past couple of days
Yes weren't they the same days casa had supposedly closed down for their Christmas break (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_92959).CASA offices will close from end of business Friday 21 December 2012 and will reopen on Wednesday 2 January 2013.

I think the action by casa at that time, in that manner, stinks to high hell!

[Two_dogs]

Trent,

What is your problem?
All I said was, "CASA were not quite happy", evidenced by issue of a six month AOC. Happy enough to not put 50 people out of work until a thorough investigation was completed. CASA do not take lightly the option of shutting down an AOC and putting people out of work.

Investigation commenced: circa 11/11/12
AOC renewal 30/11/12 - CASA were not quite happy.
AOC grounded 23/12/12 - CASA are obviously less happy.

For the record, I know Dave, Cher and the crew at both Cairns and Horn Is bases and wish them the best. :D
For the record, I know most Cairns FOI's and AWI's and wish them ... :E


Oh ... by the way, conversation over.

[Trent 972]

Two_dogs, apologies, I have no problems with you at all.
I have enjoyed your posts on this and previous topics.
I have no real knowledge of Barrier, I think I met Dave once years ago.
I have a problem with casa's timing with this action.
Perhaps I was affected by the Easter and Christmas shutdowns of Ansett years ago :( and find casa doing the same thing over and over again with respect to attacking organisations at a time when they are not able to defend themselves via the 'Friday 5pm' faxes and the holiday closures etc. totally unacceptable.
Gutless halfwits is my opinion.
If you have a problem with someone you stand up to them face to face, not king hit them from behind and run away.

None the less, all the best to you.
regards.

[Two_dogs]

Trent, Apology accepted, we're back on talking terms!

I too am dismayed at the ongoing tactics of CASA, there is not enough room on this board to list their betrayal to their charter.

GOOGLE is your friend, these cretins know no bounds ...
Or just start here, http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a.html
Gets interesting around page 30 odd ...

[Up-into-the-air]

And read on Two Dogs.

The Senate needs to add this to Item (d) of their terms of reference and get to the bottom of this stuff for once and for all.

Further reading at:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/473082-casa-economic-control-aircraft-industry.html

Go for it and lets support these guys.

We cannot let our industry be done over.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

UITA, is right. If you have concerns or have been similarly affected write to the senate as it is ongoing now and taking submissions. The next hearings are in February.

It does appear contradictory that Pel Air could have had critical audits carried out by their own inspectors yet these were not important in the investigation. Yet, Hardy and now Barrier appear to have been treated very differently? My main concern would be this Sunday afternoon and Xmas eve legal action. Why found so late in the day?

[Sunfish]

ca·pri·cious

/kəˈpriSHəs/

Adjective

Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

Synonyms

whimsical - wayward - fickle - freakish - crotchety

What I have trouble understanding is how someone can have been in business for 30 odd years and then suddenly becomes a serious and imminent risk to air safety on a Sunday afternoon before Christmas.

Same with Polar - years of peace and quiet, then an eruption.

How many similar stories are there?

If there are many, then we have an obvious problem with the way the rules are either interpreted or enforced because such "unsafe" states (in CASA's view), requiring immediate and drastic action, cannot and do not develop overnight.

To put that another way; why now?

Now that to my mind raises far more serious issues because there are a limited number of things that can have happened:

1. The first possibility that has to be ruled out is that either CASA is totally incompetent or complaisant in its regulation of the operator for many many years and either suddenly discovered its errors or fell out of love on a Sunday morning. Neither situation reflects well on CASA.

2. The second possibility that must be ruled out is that the operator has been consistently falsifying records for many years, and brilliant CASA detective work suddenly discovered a thirty(?) year orchestrated litany of lies by Barrier. This does not speak well of the operator and perhaps CASA's capabilities.

3. There has been some changed requirement by CASA or Barriers operations have changed in perhaps the last year and then the entire change management process has been totally and absolutely botched by both CASA and the operator. If this is the case, then while the operator may be at fault, CASA still shares the blame for allowing this situation to deteriorate to the point of total failure of what should be a normal business relationship.

To put all that another way:

Barrier, WTF did you do?

CASA, WTF did you take an axe to Barrier?

I don't like surprises and neither does anyone else in business or Government. They are extremely irritating because they tell us that something is very wrong with attitudes somewhere.

CASA has some explaining to do about how it let this situation develop and most particularly, why the sudden grounding so close to Christmas?

anyway, so much for amateur detective Sunfish and his long winded BS.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I remembered this article by Paul Phelan regarding Polar. Makes an interesting read and has relevance to Barrier.
CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case

Posted by: Paul Phelan (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/author/paul-phelan/) Posted date: August 13, 2012 | comment : 0 (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-cites-polar-judgement-in-repacholi-case/#comments)


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (through its expensive law firm Ashurst, formerly Blake Dawson) today brought an application in the Federal Court at Perth to strike out the claim by WA agricultural and seaplane operator Gerald Repacholi against CASA for negligence, based upon the decision in the recent decision against Polar Aviation in its damages claim against CASA..


The Sydney barrister hired by CASA for the application, brought under s31A of the Federal Court Act, argued inter alia:


“As found by the Court in Polar, a duty to take reasonable care to exercise statutory powers having regard to the interests of the person regulated would necessarily impinge on the statutory duty to exercise the powers by reference to safety considerations”


“There can be no duty of care imposed on CASA to have regard to the economic interests of the Applicants…”

Opinion

In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.


Is this the way any industry should be regulated?


Many will recall (then) Minister John Anderson’s Second Reading speech at the introduction of the bill to enshrine the draconian section 30DC of the Civil Aviation Act into law. This Section enables CASA to suspend immediately a certificate/approval at will, based on an allegation of “serious & imminent risk to safety” and which refers the matter to the Federal Court to rubber stamp the application.” The Minister said the Bill was intended to “address the industry concerns that somehow CASA was judge, jury and executioner”.


Some victims believe the Minister overlooked several of CASA’s roles in the process. In several cases, they observe, CASA appears to take the roles of informant, investigator, prosecution witness, prosecutor, judge, jury, court of appeal, and executioner.


It would be interesting to test how CASA’s argument would stand up in a few other cases we have analysed, particularly where the actions of a CASA official have been demonstrably safety-negative, and we’ll be following that agenda in more detail over the coming weeks.


Meanwhile it’s valuable to weigh recent and not-so-recent events against the Commonwealth Attorney General’s model litigant directions, unless there’s a clause somewhere that exempts CASA as a result of the Polar findings.


If you’re interested in the future of aviation in Australia, the document published below is part of a detailed document titled Legal Services Directions, issued by the Attorney-General pursuant to section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903, with effect from 1 September 1999.


The Australian National Audit Office, perhaps supported by the Law Reform Commission, could well be tasked to evaluate CASA’s performance against the standards the A-G sets out.


Go on, it’s an informative read.

CASA cites Polar judgement in Repacholi case – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-cites-polar-judgement-in-repacholi-case/)

[Sunfish]

In other words CASA can do what if effing likes and thats it.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

It looks as though we are now all on the same page, well done.

Think it can't happen to you personally, think again.

[flying-spike]

In an effort to provide a little clarity and take a bit of heat out of the argument I would like to put forward the following scenario and qualify it with the admission that I am a former Chief pilot, Engineer and FSO.
I am not and will not be an apologist for CASA (or the operator) but the following is one scenario where after an audit and renewal of an AOC the AOC is suddenly withdrawn:

A regular, programmed audit is conducted and several deficiencies are discovered that attract a number of NCNs and possibly one person is responsible for identifying the root cause and implementing the corrective action.

Given the number of NCNs and the time accepted to implement the changes and the impending renewal of the AOC, CASA renews the AOC for a period of 6 months conditional on the fixes being implemented in that period.

With the "wet" approaching and with a now higher workload the person responsible for implementing the changes for whatever reason decides to leave the organisation.

This leaves CASA with no "faith" that the required changes will be implemented in the required time and an operator that is missing a possible "key" person. If the operator cannot solve the problem then the only option is to withdraw the AOC until acceptable personnel have been brought into the organisation and the corrective actions are implemented.

This is only one possible scenario and I am not saying it is the case with Barrier but it might explain the chain of events. And no, I have not discussed the goings on with Barrier with any of my former colleagues.

[aroa]

Man/2Bikky/2...good one.!! :ok:

While CASA may have won the argument against Repacholi, they might exercise their "stautory powers" for "safety" and ignore economic considerarations ...they cant avoid civil liability for defective decision making..and there's plenty of that going on lately.
2.13 Legal basis for reg enforcement.... C & E manual
"...the Authority ..or an officer or delegate, may be found liable for damages as a result of failure to observe the rules and principles of administrative law" ( which may cause economic angst!).

And..."...where it can be shown that in the process of exercising decision making powers under CASA legislation, an officer or a delegate has acted negligently, the Authority may be held liable to pay the costs associated with any harm or injury a person may have suffered as a direct and proximate result of that action, (or as the case may be a failure to act)"

And Sunny is right ...there are some CASA persons that just do what they effing like...in the knowlege that they wil be protected by their system right up to the very top of the sh*theap.
JMac has a lot to answer for. :mad:
I do read his monthly bullsh*tins just for the crapspeak and a laugh.

As for your costs, dont get too excited about MLO either with CASA, merit reviews or the AGs office...its all just a great WOFTAM on yr part.
Only a Court may yield a result.

And as for this thread..and the Barrier bash, like many others I wait with interest to see the 'meat and bones' of what actually constitutes such a sudden "grave and imminent danger" of falling aeroplanes.

Remember ANYTHING can be done in the name of "safety". :E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

From ABC FNQ. The good thing is Barrier are getting their side of the story some press.

Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA - ABC Far North Qld - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/12/28/3661674.htm?site=farnorth)

28 December, 2012 2:51PM AEST
Grounded airline seeks resolution with CASA

By Sam Davis (http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s2558384.htm?site=farnorth)

Queensland airline Barrier Aviation says it is working with lawyers to have an extended suspension imposed by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority [CASA] lifted early.



The Cairns based charter service was grounded by CASA last week till February 15 next year for a range of alleged 'maintenance related deficiencies'.
If the suspension is upheld for its duration it would mean the company which employs 55 staff and runs around 30 flights a day would be out of the sky for almost three months.


Lawyer for Barrier Aviation Derek Perkins said the company was working 'night and day' to get back in the air.


"It wouldn't take Blind Freddy to work out that every day that we're suspended the airline is losing a very substantial amount of money," he said.


"Quite frankly, I would imagine that if we can't operate [sooner] ... then we can't survive."


While Barrier Aviation runs flights out of Darwin, Gove and Cairns Mr Perkins said CASA was most concerned with the airline's Horn Island operation.


"We're working with CASA to present a satisfactory response to their concerns," he said. "We're not out to be protagonists. We're actively working with them to resolve the matter constructively."


Discussions between Barrier Aviation's legal team were held on Christmas Eve and Mr Perkins said despite CASA being closed over the holiday period high level discussions would continue.
CASA suspended Barrier Aviation for five working days on December 23.


An application to extend the suspension until at least February 15, 2013 was made to the Federal Court the following day.


Barrier Aviation's suspension remains in place until either the Federal Court refuses CASA's application or CASA withdraws it.


In a statement CASA said they believe 'permitting Barrier Aviation to continue to fly poses a serious and imminent risk to air safety' and that the service had been operating aircraft with 'serious and known defects'.

[Kharon]

Just browsing through the Senate questions on notice from Pel Air and referring the answers back to Hansard, supplementary documents and notes made on an infant time line. Thought this was worth sharing with Pruners; to quote the Laird of the Chairman's lounge – "it's passing strange".

5). 7 December 2009: CASA Audit and Investigation team (same same) meet with Pel-Air management to discuss a number of deficiencies within the Westwind Operation. This is supported by CASA correspondence 9/12/2009. (Aside - It's passing strange that the Auditors formed the bulk of the investigating team; suppose it saved time, money and all that nasty conflict stuff?).

6). 16 December 2009: CASA accept the Pel-Air ‘Management Action Plan’ which consisted of three phases.

7).18 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 1 items and were able to recommence domestic operations.

8). 23-24 December 2009: The Pel Air CASA FOI issues 14 RCA and a number of AO.
Note: The RCA are required to be acquitted by 28/01/2010.

9). 24 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 2 items and were able to recommence international operations.

10). 8 January 2010: CASA issue seven more RCA and "several" more AO, all of which were signed off by Audit Coordinator, on behalf of several SAR team members.

Here's hoping that operations at Barrier can be given the same degree of latitude and speedy recovery. There must be some difference between being deemed "operationally sound" and being declared "legally unsafe"; perhaps it's all in the translation, maybe in the rhetoric, or is it just lost amid the piles of spun down pony pooh.

[Sunfish]

Rumor via friend of friend I saw last night I shall paraphrase to the effect that CASA was justified.

That still leaves the question open: why did it take so long to discover this alleged can of worms?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Sunfish, That would be a good question for the senators to ask wouldn't it!

Surely a process shouldn't go out of control before it is addressed.

I was wondering if it is like the self regulation of banks? Did CASA reduce the amount of oversight and delegate more to industry through self regulation. That is OK as long as industry is kept current and the regulator offers training for them to be able to do that.

[Arm out the window]

We're not out to be protagonists

That's good, I wouldn't want to see them as lead characters in a story, book or film. Antagonists, maybe?

[fdr]

AOPA Australia Editorial April 1997 - Unchecked Bureaucratic Power in Action (http://www.airsafety.com.au/edit9704.htm)
interesting system running down under...

[Air Ace]

Interesting that the principal of Barrier is an ex CASA FOI?

As to the timing of the suspension - intended solely to cause maximum financial impact.

[Up-into-the-air]

Just a Sunday read, following the reference to Falcon:

3 November 1997

Falcon Airlines plane crashed into the sea off Cairns with the occupants safely reaching the shore. The subsequent report by David Wheelahan QC found a possible conflict of interest between CASA, the airline and Minister John Sharp. The Minister had sought an independent report after stating that a response from CASA was inadequate.

AAP, 18 February 1997; Canberra Times, 8 November 1996

From:

Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/Aviation#_Toc284925924)

and:

February 1997

Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.

Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.

[Waghi Warrior]

Looks like this isn't the first time that CASA has taken action against the owners. After looking at the links above and doing a bit of Googling it's not hard to find more info. Very interesting to note that a now ex CASA PNG FOI was involved with the Falcon saga, obviously long before he joined the regulator in PNG. Maybe what he said at the time had some substance? (Although I could be wrong).

[BP_]

Having relevant knowledge of the Torres Straights i'm not at all surprised by whats happened. heart felt condolences to the pilots who might be out of a job

[Josh Cox]

Having relevant knowledge of the Torres Straights

Really, is that near the Torres Straits ?.

[new direction]

I am surprised not one of you posting on this forum has mentioned the mathematical formulae which if applied in business can instantly solve the immediate problem at hand here. It’s so simple and you need not to have the IQ of Albert Einstein to apply it. The formula goes like this.

You charge more for your services than the costs of providing those services. If you indeed charge less, eventually, areas in your business will begin to suffer.

There is an old saying in Aviation which goes like this.

Start with 2 million dollars and very soon you will have just1 million left.

Most companies go down the Shute because they fail to apply simple maths to the day to day running of the company. Areas of their business begin to suffer however all staff and management are too busy flying around the country side free of charge to notice the imminent danger.

One day the regulator turns up before the danger gets to a critical level. Then the regulator is the big bad wolf. No one mentions the company flying for gratis has not only failed to do their maths but they have contributed to the demise of General Aviation within Australia. Let this be a lesson to all operators. Get an accountant to do your maths. Listen to him or her because that’s what accountants are good at. Don’t fly for nothing just so you can tell people at the local watering hole you have x number of planes and x number of staff. N.D.

[Josh Cox]

New Direction,

Start with 2 million dollars and very soon you will have just1 million left.

How does your post relate to this thread ?.

I am surprised not one of you posting on this forum has mentioned the mathematical formulae which if applied in business can instantly solve the immediate problem at hand here. It’s so simple and you need not to have the IQ of Albert Einstein to apply it. The formula goes like this.

?.

[Ixixly]

From personal experience with the Darwin Operation they always came across as reliable from both the perspective of their pilots and the passengers they regularly carried, sad to see this happen, all we can hope now is that CASA does indeed have a good reason for this and its forthcoming!!

New Direction, you can talk maths all you like but its a bit more complicated than just "Charge more than it costs" not to mention they have been around for something like 30years so they've been doing something right this entire time!! Maybe you're thinking of DirectAir who went bust?

[rutan around]

VH-MLE
Excuse me Sir could you please explain to us where Lead Sled's post is nonsense. I see elsewhere that CASA has so far taken 23 years and in excess of $200 million to rewrite (Australianize) the regulations. All this time and money for absolutely no demonstrated safety benefit while at the same time having a proven detrimental effect on the Australian aviation industry when compared with countries that use the FAA regulations. You and the government seem to think casa is doing a good job. Should I be looking at a picture of the casa board and tugging my forelock?
Your Humble Servant RA

[LeadSled]

Rutan Around,
Don't be bothered too much by our protagonist -MLE. he,she or it (we must be non-discriminatory) is just suffering from a touch of cognitive diversity.
Apparently, facts can mean quite different things to different people.
Tootle pip!!

[Ixixly]

Ok, so now that we've all finished our little pissing contests, can we get back on track?

Theres been a lot of talk about Barrier "operating aircraft with serious and known defects", I think we've all come to the conclusion that its the Horn Island side of their operations causing the hassles and this has been backed up by various media releases, but has anyone got any information about what the "Serious and known defects" comprise of?

I'm curious if at some point CASA are required to publicly divulge their list of allegations? I'm assuming that as part of the process to extend the grounding they had to show the magistrate the evidence they had so would this be publicly available?

I apologise if these sound like stupid questions, my understanding of the whole legal proceedings side and what they do and don't have to publicly divulge is admittedly a bit lacking!!

[BP_]

JOSH COX : FNQ including the Straights so yes it is mate, really. I'm sure if you had the same knowledge as I on the area and companies that operate there you would form a similar opinion

The nature of this forum is to be able to express opinion and comment on issues without the need to identify ones self for professional and personal reason so I'm not going to elaborate on my back ground etc but I stand by my comments.

[aroa]

Gibson's statement (ABC #132 slam click) gives you the idea.
The Fort will fumble on for another 6 weeks ? .and by then Barrier will probably cease to exist. Mission accomplished. :mad:

I did note in some of CASA's original statements on grounding .."they wanted more time to investigate" Que?
The normal process it to investigate to prove up the allegations, acquire the evidence FIRST..then make a move.
Ah ha..but in the name of "safety" we can..... ??... do anything.!:mad:
And even make it up if we have to cobble up a case.

1. CASA the unaccountable dont have to divulge anything. Just in receipt of some FOI pages that consist of big BLACK rectangles !
Information? Thats not information, that's BULLSH*T SUPREME. :mad:
But that's the games they love to play.:D

2. If and when it gets to court...All will out. :ok:
Then we might know of the seriousness of the defects that caused the sky to fall in on Barrier.
Just interested.:sad:

[rutan around]

Ixixly
I understand your anxiety for answers to the quite sensible questions you pose.Perhaps this riddle will show why information is thin on the ground. (Note this is purely hypothetical as I'm sure neither side would do it) Question:- In court cases what is the similarity between the Directors of small aviation companies lying,cheating and stealing and casa officers lying,cheating and stealing? Answer :- In both cases the directors of the small aviation company are stuffed and nothing whatsoever will happen to the casa officers.
RA

[Frank Arouet]

After my pledging to acquiesce to a CA(s)A "medico-Hindi-thugee" who told me if I treated him like God, we would get along fine, I am reminded of part of the code of conduct in practice in that era;

"We the unaccountable, led by the incompetent, are pledged to defend the indefensible, and can, and do, whatever we want, at whatever cost to anyone, because we have the purse of the taxpayer to play with".

Beware the thin wire noose coming from behind.

This mob transgress political changes because there is no political will to alter their behaviour.

And while Nero fiddles, Rome burns.

[morno]

FNQ including the Straights so yes it is mate, really. I'm sure if you had the same knowledge as I on the area

If you have so much knowledge on the area, then I guess you'd also know how to spell it?

It's Straits, not Straights.

Who ever said pilots were smart, :hmm:.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Who ever said pilots were smart...

...hasn't seen one trying to add up a Maintenance release. :uhoh:

This deserves a thread of its own :E

[Trent 972]

BP_ may very well have knowledge of the Torres Straights and maybe the Torres Gays too. That should not be a Barrier to his innuendo. :E

[Josh Cox]

BP, buddy,

quote removed by mod I'm sorry, where was that stated to be the issue ?, and now you've stated it as a fact,, you must have evidence to prove this statement, if you don't, perhaps you should think carefully about removing those kind of statements.

Do a search on Dick Smith versus TACAN, and find out how anonymous pprune actually is.

There are rumours of:

1) alleged new maintenance issues ( by CASA ) only three weeks after an AOC renewal, and,
2) a disgruntled and previously sacked individual who has put pen to paper, amazing how quickly this persons name has become the punch line in a joke or two in Cairns, sorry, FNQ as you locals call it ;).

BP, perhaps you should read the earlier posts, I have previously worked for Barrier, Barrier is the best GA company I have worked for.

Trent, that's very funny :}.

[206greaser]

LOL Horatio! Guilty as charged!

Josh, mate that guys name is well known across the country now! Hope he enjoyed aviation.

This whole thing is a very sad, and extremely scary event.

Cheers,
Greaser.

[Car RAMROD]

What was the guy supposedly sacked for?

[Arnold E]

Josh, mate that guys name is well known across the country now!

Not by me or anyone I know.:confused::confused:

[LeadSled]

Have never flown VH-BIC ( what type is it ?), and VFR in IMC,

Josh,
You poor chap, VH-BIC is a P-51.
Tootle pip!!

[psycho joe]

There are lots of rather smug posters here alluding to the idea that a Pilot has committed professional suicide by going to a regulator with safety concerns.

Make no mistake when some of you guys get to an airline interview and you get asked a question by the HR person about your previous contribution to company / industry safety; a percentage of you people who are slagging this person off will claim this guys story as your own.

Oh, you'll tell a great yarn about how you tried and tried to change a company culture and then out of exasperation you had no choice but leave rather than commit xyx, and on your way out you tried to save lives by going to the regulator, who then grounded the company out of grave concern.

Then again some of you will just bitch about how some guy and the regulator stopped you from building hours - such is the sad state of GA.

Disclaimer: I'm not in any way claiming any knowledge of Barrier nor am I making accusations against barrier, its staff or "Fister":E.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I am aware of the two interpretations of VH-BIC.....

The first is a PA-32 - 260....look it up.

The second is the BIC (biro) some might use to falsify log book entries to 'build up time' ....quickly.
Have met the latter a few times when Instructing in 'de good ole days'.....

I guess nothing much changes....at all.... at all...at all....

Cheers :uhoh:

[rutan around]

PSYCHO

There are lots of rather smug posters here alluding to the idea that a Pilot has committed professional suicide by going to a regulator with safety concerns.It's funny how many incompetent people discover "safety issues" right after their boss has discovered their incompetence and had to sack them.
Cheers RA

[nasa]

Spoke to one of their ex pilots this morning who said that he loved working there, great bunch of people, paid their staff well, but after a while surely even the CASA would notice 30+ aircraft without any entries in the maintenance releases :eek:

Spoke with another operater up north who said great bunch of guys, but you can only get away with it for so long :eek:

That's all I've got to throw into the rumour mill :bored:

[blackhand]

Are both wrong, it is the Torres Strait,
And as for as Torres Strait operations, al same for many years, UZU, Mohameds mad mob, and the bloke from Innisfail - nothing has changed.

[T28D]

"Veritas Omnia Vincula Vincit "

("Truth Overcomes All Things")

[justinga]

From my knowledge, sounds like nasa summed them up pretty well. I also hear that there is another operator on the Cairns airfield that about to recieve the same treatment from CASA........as early as tomorrow

[Shed Dog Tosser]

" but after a while surely even the CASA would notice 30+ aircraft without any entries in the maintenance releases "

Not suggesting this is the case in this instance.

But CAsA brought this on themselves, in days of old:

* a class B maintained aircraft was said the be "airworthy" when:
- the aircraft had a valid maintenance release, and,
- the basic operational requirements for flight (IFR / VFR) were met and serviceable ( as per CAO 20.18 ), and,
- the mandatory instruments as detailed within the flight manual were servicable, and,
- the PIC was satisfied with the state of all of the above and the calculated sphincter factor based on any other issues ( higher than normal oil consumption etc etc ).

Incidently, relevant information was allowed to be inserted into the defect section, eg: "plug fouling on lh mag on first flight of day, clear after warm up" , "puff of white smoke from lh exhaust on engine start, pulled through all cylinder, six good compressions", and " high static manifold pressure on cold idle, OK after warm up".

If you wrote any of these on MR today, you may as well pull your pants down and select the largest pineapple on the shelf.

Now, all has to be serviceable, 20.18 is now somewhat irrelevant to pilots as is the essential instruments section of the flight manual, if its not a "passenger convenience" item, the aircraft is grounded, unless of course there is an MEL, which is expensive to obtain and more often than not it is irrelevant on small aircraft.

So what then occurs, aircraft maintenance releases all over Australia do not see a pen in the defect until airborne on the homeward sector. Do you think this only occurs in GA ?, bet it doesn't.

Well done CAsA, well done.

[MACH082]

So what then occurs, aircraft maintenance releases all over Australia do not see a pen in the defect until airborne on the homeward sector. Do you think this only occurs in GA ?, bet it doesn't.

Or they keep operating with the defect until its ready to hit the shop, thence it is subsequently 'written up'.

GA ops 101.

[Mach E Avelli]

In your typical bustedar$e GA outfit defects only get written up at the 100 hourly or scheduled shop visit a) if the boss allows it and b) if the boss determines that clearing the defect won't cost anything.
It is amazing how 30 and 40 year old aeroplanes can flog around the bush for months or years on end with virtually no defects. Yeah, right. Even Japanese motorbikes are not that good.

[Creampuff]

My my, how things have changed. Not.

Don’t worry: the new rules will fix all this. Not.

Gosh I miss these groundhog days. NOT! :)

[206greaser]

Nasa, you or your "friend" may not be that informed. My "friend" knows for a fact that some bases wrote things up as soon as they became apparent and the a/c was grounded. Hang the cost.

All the talk on here would seem as though the company was guilty of something, other than sacking a useless prick, before being found guilty of anything!

If a threat to aviation safety was imminent wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove? Nope it takes 6+ weeks for that! Give me a break! This is one pissants attempt to become lead auditor.

Wouldn't it be great if NZed annexed Australia?!

Cheers,
Greaser.

[Fission]

CASA Aviation Ruling 1/2004 clarifies what can and can't be u/s for Charter / RPT flight ops.

You can go with certain items failed - consult your HAAMC if not sure :)

[LeadSled]

Ex FSO Griffo,
P-51 (as in Parker 51, the pen, not the NA P-51D) was the predecessor to VH-BIC, I was being entirely facetious. My aviating predates the regular use of the Biro in AU.

Frission,
CASA "rulings", unlike ATO rulings, have no legal force, although some in CASA would like to think (and some probably do think) they do.
It is the words in the Act and Regulation, read in light of any legal precedents, that count.
With regard to RPT v Charter in CAR 206, there is a long and inglorious history.
Tootle pip!!

[anothertwit]

Update from a mate,

As of today ALL pilots were stood down without pay until "at this stage" the 24th Jan pending negotiations with CAsA.

Looks like the sunbus driving pilot just made the top of 37 peoples **** list :D

[Shed Dog Tosser]

An update from a current Horn Pilot, the poison pen letter from this disgruntled sacked pilot knifes the company, and , what for it, his fellow company Horn Island Pilots.

So not just is the company being grounded on the allegations of one sacked disgruntled ex-employee six odd weeks after a CAsA audit and three weeks after CAsA issued Barrier a new AOC, the individual pilots have been knifed, this guy must of been a gem to work with.

Seriously, what is a Court going to see when one sacked and disgruntled ex-employee, sacked for what appears good reason several months ago, is CAsA's star witness against the entire rest of the company.

It just defies logic.

[Two_dogs]

C'mon Sunbus driver, you surely have something to add? ...

Everyone in FNQ knows who you are anyway, and by way of networking, probably a lot more ...

Tell us your side of the story.

[justinga]

Anybody know if there is any truth to the current rumour that CASA picked up a little black book in the Horn Is office...apparently all the snags where written up, just not in the M/R

[Car RAMROD]

Seriously, what is a Court going to see when one sacked and disgruntled ex-employee, sacked for what appears good reason several months ago, is CAsA's star witness against the entire rest of the company.

They are going to see whether or not the evidence which CASA claims to have is cause to act further upon. Whether or not the person is dissgruntled doesn't really have an effect- it doesn't change any (alleged) wrongdoing if the evidence is there. If it was a current employee who took their concerns to the regulator, your tone would likely be quite different.


Nobody has answered my previous question, what was the cause for dismissal?



By the way Shed Dog, if you reckon Horn is a holiday destination, remind me not to book a holiday with you :}

[Trent 972]

Anybody know if there is any truth to the current rumour that CASA picked up a little black book in the Horn Is office...apparently all the snags where written up, just not in the M/R
I guess if true, this must have already been brought to Barriers attention (www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r006.pdf) as required by the legislation, otherwise it is not relevant.
However, where CASA has reason to believe that the holder has engaged in, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in, conduct which constitutes, contributes to, or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety, CASA may immediately suspend the authorisation and the holder must be given full details in writing of the grounds upon which CASA relies (see Chapter 7).
The risk (www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r007.pdf) does not have to crystallise into a life or injury-threatening event. Provided there is a perceived threat or danger to the life of some person or persons engaged in civil aviation (which need not, in fact, exist) a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds by a CASA officer of the perceived risk is sufficient to trigger the operation of Division 3A.
It is not necessary for a CASA officer to identify specifically the harm that will result from the imminent risk (www.casa.gov.au/enf/009rx01.pdf), or identify the person or persons who will be harmed. But there must be a close temporal connection between the risk and the harm. The risk must be a present one in the sense that it creates an obligation and immediate pressure on CASA to take urgent suspension action when the evidence on which the perception of the risk is based, comes to light.
As soon as CASA officers have sufficient evidence to be appraised of the serious and imminent risk, they are entitled to take action under Division 3A, and any delay of more than a few days after discovery, to commence the process is likely be fatal to success before the Federal Court.
What is an Imminent Risk (www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r007.pdf)?
“Imminent” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as meaning “likely to occur at any moment, impending: war is imminent”.
The concept of imminence does not equate with the concept of immediacy. As Professor Sir John Smith QC has observed the term “imminent”, in the context of the criminal law defence of necessity, can include circumstances where a threat is “hanging over” a person even though there is no immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm: [1999] Crim LR 570 at 571.
(The Macquarie Dictionary also contains a definition for "up sh!t creek (without a paddle")).

"There are no definitions in the Act of the terms ‘serious’ or ‘imminent’".

Therefore in layman's terms, the AOC was suspended for:
Some "perceived threat" "which need not, in fact, exist", may or may not do some harm to some unidentified person "even though there is no immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm".

In my very best John McEnroe "YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS!"

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Snag logs,

I would put my left nut on the fact that every GA operator the operates away from a capital city in the world has some form of snag log, a snag is not a defect.

EG:

* Brake pads looking worn,
* RH engine has small oil leak,
* Small amount of hydraulic oil weeping from left strut,
* Left engine oil consumption higher approx 1.5 qts per hour,
* Small patch of corrosion on LH aileron,
* HF very noisy,
* Hard to land,

These items would be discussed regularly with engineering.

These are not defects, they are observations, some items will be completely ridiculous, such as, hard to land, something rattling in cockpit etc etc.

When an aircraft routinely goes into scheduled maintenance every 100 flight hours, how do you get those niggly little issues fixed, the ones that are not defects.

Option 1: Write up on MR as soon as noticed and ground the aircraft, your company will go bust.

Option 2: Write into MR on final sector to scheduled maintenance, get raped by CAsA.

Option 3: Have a snag log.

I say again, snag logs are for writing up little, non defect items, stuff you would like looked at.

Items that would not be snag log material: RH mag U/S, crack in main spar, LH oleo flat, flat spot and hole to canvas on LH main tyre, HF U/S, RPM indication U/S etc etc.

[morno]

I guess it may well depend on your system of maintenance SDT, but I know in the company I work for, you can write these 'snags' up, and then sign the maintenance release off as "No Major Defect - Aircraft Safe For Flight", then it get's transferred to the DDL.

However, there are things in that list that I wouldn't consider just 'snags'. Such as an engine burning excessive amounts of oil? Seriously?

I have no hesitation in grounding an aircraft that needs to be grounded. I do want to come home at the end of each shift.

morno

[Shed Dog Tosser]

However, there are things in that list that I wouldn't consider just 'snags'. Such as an engine burning excessive amounts of oil (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7611839#)? Seriously?Actually, yes, quite serious.

If from your experience the aircraft in your fleet normally burns less than 1 qts per hour and the aircraft or engine manual specifies "oil burns of 2 qts per hours or more, or excessive amounts of oil on the airframe, the source must be identified and repaired" ( or words to that effect ).

So, 1.5 qts consumption is not out of tolerance and aircraft generally don't "just get better".

I doubt there are too many pilots that would hesitate grounding an aircraft for a genuine defect, we all want to go home at the end of the flight.

Morno, you operate under a very expensive and specifically designed maintenance system for high performance turbines, in aircraft usually less than 10 years old..............apples with apples.

[morno]

Yeah, guess it depends on what the manual says with regards to oil useage. I was just going off my memory of operating a piston where in excess of 1 quart was considered too much and the engine pulled.

You are correct, I do operate aircraft that are as you describe. However, regardless of whether it's a 2 year old high performance turbine or if it's a 40 year old piston single, it's still an aircraft. If it's broke, then it's written on the M/R. Not these little black books.

morno

[Mach E Avelli]

The problem with unofficial methods of reporting 'snags' or so-called non-airworthiness items is that non-engineering people ( like a 250 hour CPL or beancounter boss that may have been a farmer in a former life) are taking it upon themselves to make a judgement call for which they are neither legally nor professionally qualified to make.
Hence, when CASA stumble upon little black books or notepads or even emails detailing such stuff they have every right and an obligation under their charter to take action.

Simple really. If the defect is known, it is written up in the operator's approved maintenance system, then either deferred under the MEL, annotated by a qualified LAME as 'non-airworthiness' or fixed.
A pilot may be able to defer certain items via the MEL - all depends on what has been approved for that operator.
If it is not a defect, but impending (e.g. A brake almost down to the wear indicator) the prudent pilot will make a phone call to alert the operator that in a day or two the defect WILL be logged unless rectified. Putting anything else in writing is potentially professional suicide.

Why such a policy would send an operator broke if he is not already headed that way - someone please explain?

[Creampuff]

I think you are a very courageous person, SDT.

But let’s assume you are correct and none of the things on your list above falls within the meaning of ‘defect’ in the regulations. What, then, is the risk of entering them on the MR? Where is the prohibition on operating an aircraft whose MR has a bunch of endorsements that are not defects?

To take one of your own examples to make my point, if you endorsed an MR with “Aircraft hard to land”, what rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Mach,

If these items are not unservicable I.e. not a defect, they would otherwise be unknown and not likely to be corrected due to no one knowing about it, it may soon enough, if left, become an unservicability.

I.e. oil consumption over 2 qts per hour or a hole in the aileron.

If a pilot is on a charter, two hours out and two hours back, when on the ground out at the destination, I.e. away from home base, and they make an entry into the defect section of the MR , of something that is essentially not a defect, say for example, "oil consumption calculated to be 1.5 on the lh engine ", who is going to close the open entry ?, if you say the pilot, perhaps you could show me where and how the pilot is permitted to close the entry for a class b aircraft.

So and engineer would be dispatched in another aircraft at huge expense, to close the entry, Profit for the day minus $3000.

Creampuff,

Thanks, although I am uncomfortable with the title of "hero", ;).

The "hard to land" example was an example of the sort of thing a retarded pilot would write, something a chief pilot / engineer would querry and try to determine if there is infact a defect on the aircraft or a pilot "issue".

All endorsement on a MR must be closed / signed off.

I am an airline pilot, so I am not incriminating myself, just highlighting the stupidity of the tail wagging the dog.

[Creampuff]

All endorsement on a MR must be closed / signed off.Really? What rule says that?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Creamy,

Perhaps you should talk to CAsA about that

Enter the FOI or AWIs personal opinion or interpretation, "in my opinion 1.5 qts per hour is unservicable or you have open entry's on the MR incontravention to that paragraph in Cao 20.18, here have some administrative action ".

[Phil O'Rupp]

Just out of interest...what about aircraft, let's say a shrike, with a range limited not by fuel but by oil? Would oil consumption so high that it limits range be a maintenance issue that needs to be addressed?

[anothertwit]

Creamy,

CAR 48 might be a good place to start.

Phil, how much oil per hour is it using?

[maxgrad]

Shed Dog,

Incorrect, from the mouths of three CASA inspectors, "No you can have an open entry as long as it does not fit into an unservicability category'

Beware though as a slight miss statement and the aircraft is grounded or you end up on the next ramp check with a situation.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Max, and to the fourth CAsA inspector who would view it as an unforgivable crime, one befitting summary execution.

Believe me, its a lucky dip, depends entirely on their opinion / interpretation, at the time, crotchety best describes the experience.

[anothertwit]

Justinga,

From what I hear you have it in a nutshell. which gets me thinking about everyones favorite sunbus driver, once CAsA has finished with barrier what's to say they won't go after him, after all he just admitted to flying back to base with a known defect and then NOT writing it up there either! :ugh:

As we all know it is our legal obligation to write up all defects :E

[Creampuff]

CAR 48 might be a good place to start.Or not. CAR 48 is about when an MR recommences to be in force, after ceasing to be in force under CAR 47(1). CAR 47(1) applies to very limited circumstances, such as when “the aircraft has suffered major damage or has developed a major defect, other than damage or a defect that is a permissible unserviceability”, and is likely to be flown before it’s fixed.

Perhaps CAR 133 and CAO 20.18 would be a better place to start.

CAR 133 says, in relevant part:(1) Subject to regulation 317 and regulation 21.197 of CASR, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:
…
(c) the flight is not in contravention of any condition that:

(i) is set out or referred to in the maintenance release or in any other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of regulation 49, or subregulation 43 (10); or

(ii) is applicable to the maintenance release by virtue of a direction given under regulation 44;

(d) any maintenance that is required to be carried out before the commencement of the flight, or that will be required to be carried out before the expiration of the flight, to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under these regulations with respect to the aircraft has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed;
…CAO 20.18 says, in relevant part: 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.I ask again: If you endorsed an MR with “Aircraft hard to land”, what rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?

What “defect” or “damage” has the aircraft suffered? What “maintenance” is “required to be carried out”? What “instrument” or “equipment” “fitted to the aircraft” is not “serviceable”?

[justinga]

Im loving all the thoughts and opinions. No wonder CASA are taking weeks to decipher the facts and lets face it, there must be a few "issues" on the table. Must be a few drivers and spanner turners abit nervous of the M/Rs they have signed in the past. The owners will fight there way out with lawyers but where does it leave the busted arse pilot/engineer.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Creeamy,

In all due respect, what you "know" and what the industry is forced at gun point to comply with is very different.

For example, CAR 206 ring any bells ?.

"Hard to land", in the subjective mind of some foi or awi on a mission, this would be an indication of a huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue, because it could be the airframe failing or the flux capacitor not generating 1.21 giga watts........

The only certainty is that its not black and white, since the introduction of the beauracratic can't do strict liability culture, its all about making examples of pilots / companies and covering CAsAs prosteria.

[maxgrad]

Unfortunately.....I absolutely agree

My preferred action is to write it up as an MEL or grounded.

[anothertwit]

Creamy,

It seems you done more research than I (2 min google search lol):ok: kudos to you. In saying that though I will still throw my hat in with the shed dog.

When no one is policing the police it matters not what the rules say but what the police say! :sad:

[Creampuff]

I know very, very little SDT. But the little I know includes this: Blank MR = shonky."Hard to land", in the subjective mind of some foi or awi on a mission, this would be an indication of a huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue, because it could be the airframe failing or the flux capacitor not generating 1.21 giga watts........And whether there is an underlying “huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue” is a question of objective fact rather than subjective opinion, which question is not for a mere pilot to answer.

If there’s no problem, a LAME should have no problem in clearing the endorsement.

When you choose not to record something that could turn out to be “an imminent safety issue”, you make a very courageous decision. The people with professional qualifications and lawful authority to make the technical call are thankful to you for taking that risk instead of them.

The innocent pax you carry are not as thankful.

[justinga]

Lets just use the "hard landing" as an example, whats say you did a hard landing and didnt write it up as the owner/engineer/chief pilot told you it was ok and last week they had told the bloke you replaced the same thing. Then you leave the company or never talk to the next pilot as the aircraft gets moved betwen bases and then it does another "hard landing"........You get the picture, its GA, $$$ are tight, aircraft are old

[Shed Dog Tosser]

I also claim to know very little.

Sorry Creamy, I did not answer your question.

If you endorsed an MR with “Aircraft hard to land”, what rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?I'll give you a fairer example, C172, day VFR Charter, in addition to all the standard equipment fitted from the factory, the owner spends some money on the latest and great shadin fuel computer, which is installed in an unfilled hole in the instrument panel ( everything is serviceable ).

The Shading does not power up and is deemed U/S.

The aircraft does not have a MEL, which is pretty common for GA aircraft.

The pilot writes it on the MR.

Pilot flies to destination, the CAsA ramp said Pilot, and quotes:

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 (Does not apply)

(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 (Does not apply)

(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 (Does not apply)

(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
So, it would be suggested that, you have no right to fly this aircraft, as it has an open item on the MR, and you're a very naughty boy/girl. { insert pineapple here }

So sure, MEL all aircraft, which in itself is a painful and expensive process.

But, again, snags are not defects, how about we call it the "stitch in time saves nine" book.

And whether there is an underlying “huge issue with the aircraft that will be imminent safety issue” is a question of objective fact rather than subjective opinion (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7612078#), which question is not for a mere pilot to answer. Really, what if a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?.

I may sound really down on CAsA, I'm actually not, there are some awesome Team Leaders, FOI's and AWI's in CAsA, more often than not the ones trying to re-invert the wheel are the other type of Team Leader, FOI or AWI.

Justinga, that is also subjective, what you might call a hard landing might be normal for me :).

[Creampuff]

No, that won’t do at all, SDT. I asked a question based on your example. Answer that question based on that example please.

In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades. (And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)

For the regulator, pristine MRs/approved equivalents are shooting fish in a barrel. The gun usually comes out when the whistleblower gives the regulator little choice.

You’re all free to choose to break the law, folks. But don’t be surprised and call foul when the regulator’s sights fall on you or your employer. And if you are labouring under the misconception that the regulator's your biggest problem, have an accident and kill or injure someone ....

[Two_dogs]

From what I hear you have it in a nutshell. which gets me thinking about everyones favorite sunbus driver, once CAsA has finished with barrier what's to say they won't go after him, after all he just admitted to flying back to base with a known defect and then NOT writing it up there either! :ugh:
The UNCASA have been known to offer immunity for individual transgressions in return for signed statements against operators. You'd better get that in writing though! :ok:

Oh ... by the way Sunbus driver, been 24 hours, still waiting for your side of the story. You had a pretty big mouth when you were talking to CASA, time to put up or FCUK OFF altogether, you're pretty unemployable anyway.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Creampuff,

In the "the aircraft is hard to land" statement:

1) is it a defect, perhaps there is an underlying problem with the aircraft ( remember this was given as an example of what a retarded pilot could / would write ),

2) has it been written up as a defect, well it is an open item on the MR, so as per the example given above, unless "the aircraft is hard to land" is listed on the MEL as a category A, B or C deferable item, the aircraft shall not be flown.

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 (Does not apply)

(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 (Does not apply)

(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 (Does not apply)

(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply) Enter the subjective determination FOI or AWI ( which I believe you are claiming can not happen ), "Well if its different to the other C172s, there must be a reason, ( cue the selection of the ass covering switch to the detent position ) it is my opinion that this aircraft is an imminent safety risk,,,,,,,,,,, I don't know why,,,,,,,, it just is".

In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades. No it hasn't

Refer post 155

But CAsA brought this on themselves, in days of old:

* a class B maintained aircraft was said the be "airworthy" when:
- the aircraft had a valid maintenance release, and,
- the basic operational requirements for flight (IFR / VFR) were met and serviceable ( as per CAO 20.18 ), and,
- the mandatory instruments as detailed within the flight manual were servicable, and,
- the PIC was satisfied with the state of all of the above and the calculated sphincter factor based on any other issues ( higher than normal oil consumption etc etc ).By my recollection this "interpretation" changed in the early 2000's.

(And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)This issue is not the absences of a Shadin, it is the Pilots not doing their jobs properly: flight planning, correctly leaning in the climb and cruise, monitoring the inflight EGT / CHT and checking actual FOB at departure point, checking mid flight fuel burns etc etc.

Having a Shadin onboard might have helped them, so would have the correct amount of fuel or correct fuel management technique.

The aircraft had been certified worthy of a VH- registration out of the factory without said Shadin.

Incidently, you didn't answer my question :) :

Really, what if a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?.

[Sunfish]

What seems to me to be totally absent from GA and CASA these days are the twin concepts of "common sense" and the "reasonable" man.

On a number of occasions I've found something that I had thought to be unserviceable and qureid the engineers to be told: "It always does that" and what the fix was, and the fix worked and there was no unserviceablity.

At other times I wouldn't accept "it always does that" when complaining about a rough idle and a linkage was immediately adjusted and ultimately replaced. That didn't get written up in the MR either.

On another occasion I rendered an aircraft unserviceable without knowing it - so nothing in the maintenace release until a few days later.

While I am not and never will be a commercial pilot or operator, what does one do when you are in the middle of nowhere and you hit an emu on landing or discover the proverbial burned out landing light?

You are flying day VFR, is your aircraft unserviceable according to CASA?

Does the small dent in the leading edge render your aircraft unserviceable until it has been checked by a LAME?

Common sense tells us that the answer is that the aircraft is still fit for purpose in both cases, but what does CASA say?

[Creampuff]

Sigh….a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?If you genuinely don’t know the answer to that question, it would explain a lot.

If that pilot gets in that aircraft and flies it out, knowing about the ding and not entering the damage in the MR and having it signed off by a LAME or CASA granting an SFP, the pilot is not only a criminal but an idiot. The pilot has NFI whether the ding is of a size and in a position that affects the structural integrity of the wing.

The fact that people take the risk and make it back does not make it right. People take the risk of drink driving and usually make it home too.

I’ll try one last time to make my point about entries on MRs.

A pilot puts this endorsement in the MR of a charter aircraft: “The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red.”

What rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?

What “defect” or “damage” has the aircraft suffered? What “maintenance” is “required to be carried out”? What “instrument” or “equipment” “fitted to the aircraft” is not “serviceable”?

I realise that some FOIs have weird and wacky views about what the rules mean. But that’s because they are recruited from an industry in which folklore circulates as gospel. :ugh:

[404 Titan]

I have been in this industry since 1986. I haven’t worked in GA for 13 years now but in that time things sound like they have gotten worse. My last company was an all piston twin operator (9 aircraft) and even we had an approved system of maintenance, i.e. 50 hour checks and MEL’s, Tech Logs etc. For an operator to have 30+ aircraft and still be operating on the generic 100 hourlies and maintenance release system amazes me. It gives you almost no flexibility in your operation. The cost of setting the system up is easily made up by allowing many items to be deferred under an MEL and still operate the aircraft.

For an operator to have allegedly been using a “Snag Book” (no such word exists by the way under any system of maintenance. All snags are defects period irrespective of how small they are) is inexcusable. If any operator gets caught out doing this then they must accept the consequences. It’s unfortunate but if pilots within these operators have gone along with this illegal practise then they too must accept the consequences. They have knowingly conspired to break the law. That’s your legal responsibility as PIC.

Some people here have attacked the alleged whistle blower. This is human nature unfortunately. The reason for that person leaving this operator is irrelevant though to the court. As long as their evidence is irrefutable, i.e. not word of mouth or here say, the evidence will stick.

I don’t know Creampuff personally but I have been here long enough to know their back ground. He/she is more than qualified to argue and substantiate their legal opinion to anything regarding the law both in the aviation and non aviation arena. I also know how to differentiate between the arguments by those obviously affected by this CASA grounding and those that are not.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff, what if our proverbial dent in the leading edge is exactly like all the other dents that have been inspected and passed by our LAME for years?

What about our burnt out landing light when we are flying only day VFR?

What about the quick phone call to the engineers back at base?

Where is the common sense and reasonableness? Are we regarded as too stupid?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

What rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?From the subjective opinion of an FOI or AWI ( which I have now answered several different ways ), this items and what it may and may not be caused by, could be a hanging offence, if that exact item is not listed as a deferable item om the MEL ( if the aircraft has one ), irrespective what it is, you are in breach of that 20.18 reference.

But that’s because they are recruited from an industry in which folklore circulates as gospel. Agree in part.

CAsA is also to blame, everyone in the industry is jumping at shadows and that is what CAsA appears to want, CAsA tries to push policy as law, interpretations change at the drop of a hat and often with massive implications to the sustainability of the business or the cost of operating ( i.e. Cessna SID )

New and far reaching legislation / policy is enacted based on CAsA officers personal opinions without any consideration as to how, can or will the industry be able to comply ( the tail wagging the dog ).

If that pilot gets in that aircraft and flies it out, knowing about the ding and not entering the damage in the MR and having it signed off by a LAME or CASA granting an SFP, the pilot is not only a criminal but an idiot. The pilot has NFI whether the ding is of a size and in a position that affects the structural integrity of the wing. Are you sure about that ?, I've seen this little gem play out a couple of times in GA ( not me ) and the winner was, the pilot is the only one on location and qualified to make the judgement ( so is that a, to quote you, an objective assessment or a subjective opinion ?).

If the pilot is satisfield the aircraft is still servicable, i.e. the damage is not major, when the aircraft returns ( and it is fair to say by direct route to a maintenance base ) it is then handed over to the engineers for assessment / repairs, again, enter a subjective FOI / AWI who thinks it was an executable offence.

Two issues, open defect on MR and damage to wing.

OLC gets involved, lots of sabre rattling, threats of losing licence, 6 months pass, then it all disappears. no court case etc etc.

Titan, snags are not defects, if you believe this, I would suggest you've either forgotten what working in GA was really like or under estimate how CAsA has changed.

Barrier may very well operate using MELs, I have no idea.

What about the "small patch of corrosion on aileron" entry, how is this a defect that grounds the aircraft ?, would you want it removed before it becomes a "small hole in aileron "?.

[Ixixly]

Are we maybe getting a little off topic? And not to mention a bit outrageous?

Coming back to the world of the normal, no one is going to endorse their MR with "The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red", I challenge someone to find that entry on any MR anywhere, so bit of a ridiculous question to ask. Same goes with "the aircraft is hard to land", once again, I really couldn't see even the most junior rookie pilot adding this to an MR.

BUT There are things that i've seen junior rookie pilots add such as "Left Fuel Gauge Overreading", now that was a "Grounding Item" but lets face it, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, if you have a dipstick and know your fuel burn, have a Fuel Flow Meter then its not really that big a deal, heck, if everyone put down that particular item on their MR half of Australias GA Single Fleet would probably be grounded. But it is something worthy of investigating and getting fixed the next time theirs a LAME looking over the aircraft, thusly the reason for snag lists. Alot of MELs would probably allow for such a thing to be U/S temporarily, but without that MEL it is still illegal cause of regulations, but not a safety issue with a calibrated dipstick.

This particular pilot who put down the Fuel Gauge got a reaming from the Chief Pilot, not for entering it into the MR but for not simply asking someone with more experience first, he did so and it wasn't till the next day someone went to fly it that it was found on the MR and the damned thing was grounded, luckily we had other Aircraft available and weren't particularly busy that day so it wasn't that great a deal.

My point is, and i'm trying to get back to Barrier and thusly a little on topic, does Barrier have any kind of Maintenance available in Horn Island? If so then when something becomes "U/S" it should be brought to the attention of a Senior Pilot and then brought up with the Engineers to determine if its an actual safety issue or not and then if necessary added to the MR and signed off by the engineer as being known but not an issue. If there is no Maintenance available for them I could understand a lack of MR U/S Items being written ("IF" this is indeed even what has happened, I don't think anyone has come out and said with 100% certainty that this is CASAs main issue) as it would be pointless to ground an aircraft for a non-item just to cover ones ass just incase one FOI decides to probe that little grey area left by that paragraph 10.1 that SDT Mentioned.

At the same time, an operator like Barrier doesn't have any great excuses for not having an MEL that is appropriately written up for their Aircraft, I understand its an expensive exercise, but so is either one aircraft or an entire fleet being grounded for not entering MR Items to satisfy normal regulatory requirements. On this same vein, does Barrier have MELs written up for all their Aircraft?

Also Sunfish, whilst your posts are usually well thought out i'd have to say any Pilot who takes off after hitting a Kangaroo without it being inspected/reported first is asking for any punishment that comes their way, its one of those things that simply is not the worth the risk and cannot be properly assessed by the average Pilot. Lets face it, between Pay Phones, Telstra NextG, HF and VHF there aren't a lot of strips regularly used that don't have some kind of communications available back to base. I vaguely remember a story a few years ago of someones homemade aircraft crashing on their base turn and almost killing the pilot involved, the reason being that he had designed the cockpit canopy an inch too high which disrupted the airflow over the elevator causing a loss of control, it was a simple thing that as a normal pilot would never be noticed, it was only revealed after the accident and it was examined closely by qualified people.

[Creampuff]

Creampuff, what if our proverbial dent in the leading edge is exactly like all the other dents that have been inspected and passed by our LAME for years?Then your LAME will have no hesitation in taking responsibility for certifying it airworthy, again.What about our burnt out landing light when we are flying only day VFR?How did you find out that it was burnt out? In any event, if it’s charter or RPT, and not the subject of one of the exceptions, it must be rectified before further flight.What about the quick phone call to the engineers back at base?What about it?Where is the common sense and reasonableness? Are we regarded as too stupid?I’d highly commend to you the first two paragraphs of Titan 404’s post above. Read them twice.

The regulatory option is patently clear and actually results in cost savings rather than law breaking.

Unfortunately, common sense is uncommon in GA and one pilot’s reasonable is another pilot’s unreasonable.

[kalavo]

BUT There are things that i've seen junior rookie pilots add such as "Left Fuel Gauge Overreading", now that was a "Grounding Item" but lets face it, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, if you have a dipstick and know your fuel burn, have a Fuel Flow Meter then its not really that big a deal, heck, if everyone put down that particular item on their MR half of Australias GA Single Fleet would probably be grounded.

Whoa, hang on a second there. If it's not a grounding item, why is it a required item? This is _exactly_ why an MEL or PUS is required rather than relying on a dumb pilot to make a decision.

What are the consequences of not having that fuel gauge working properly? You've said if you have a known fuel quantity and a fuel flow meter/totaliser it's not a big deal. Fine and to an extent I agree with you... but you've already had one failure in your aircraft, what else could go wrong?

Your fuel flow meter could fail... big deal? Nah, not really, known power settings still burns fuel at a known rate give or take.

Your fuel system may develop a major or minor leak... big deal? Possibly! Where is the leak? If it's pouring out of the wing you should notice it before flight. What if you have a fuel injection system and the leak is past the fuel flow sensor on the return line? Your fuel flow meter thinks the fuel is going back to the tank, but it's not, it's now venting overboard and you're unlikely to notice. Would you notice this particular fault with a fuel gauge? Yup! How can we get back to the equivalent level of safety with broken fuel gauge then?

Well let's assume for a second this is the only possible downside we can think of to not having a fuel gauge (bad assumption, but trying to demonstrate the process the manufacturer goes down developing an MEL). The amount of fuel going through this return line is never going to be more than x litres per hour. The endurance from this tank is 3 hours. The most amount of fuel we can vent overboard might come out to 45 minutes.


So what would the MMEL or PUS say in this particular case? One I have operated under previously allowed the aircraft to continue to fly, providing...

a) The pilot is able to accurately determine the fuel quantity at each point of landing
b) The other fuel gauge remains operative (otherwise we could potentially have two leaks and double the amount of fuel we lose)
c) An extra hour of fuel must be carried



I would also disagree with your assertion that half the GA fleet would probably be grounded if pilots wrote up broken fuel gauges. The operator that obtained this PUS would have had strong words with any pilot involved had it not been written up. This same operator who from my point of view always did everything by the book with regards to maintenance, but guess what? They now have a number of their aircraft grounded by CASA due to concerns over their maintenance system. Yet according to you other muppets are still out there flying with broken equipment, not writing it up, being told not to write it up and allowed to continue flying.

Thank you for confirming my belief that CASA are going after the wrong operators in this industry. I am glad to see though that you would phone a friend after a birdstrike and get a second opinion and doing the right thing. Just disappointed to hear your maintenance organisation and senior pilots are potentially letting you down. Stay safe!

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

Titan, snags are not defects, if you believe this, I would suggest you've either forgotten what working in GA was really like or under estimate how CAsA has changed.


I may have been out of GA for 13 years but my memory is very clear. My time as CP of two separate organisations and Maintenance controller is still just as clear today as it was 13 years ago. Please provide a CASA reference to what a “Snag” is and your argument will have some weight. A “Snag Log” is a shonky GA term invented by shonky GA operators. It's not as if operators weren't using them in my time as well you know.:ugh:

A defect is a defect is a defect, period.

[Creampuff]

What about the "small patch of corrosion on aileron" entry, how is this a defect that grounds the aircraft ?, would you want it removed before it becomes a "small hole in aileron "?.The fundamental issue here, SDT, is that you presume to make the technical judgment call when you are not qualified or authorised to make that call.

You (and Sunfish) also presume to make the technical judgement call in respect of the ding in the wing caused by a collision with a roo, when you are not qualified or authorised to make that call.

The reason CAO 20.18 para 10.1 is there is that fare paying passengers are entitled to be protected from pilots who fancy themselves as qualified aeronautical engineers and maintenance engineers. Fare paying passengers are entitled to get on board aircraft that have had all defects and damage inspected, rectified and certified by qualified and authorised personnel, unless flight with the defect or damage has been approved (MEL or PUS) by qualified and authorised personnel and the flight is in accordance with conditions set by those personnel.

If you want to get in a private aircraft and fly yourself around with dings in your wings caused by collisions with roos, fill your boots. But if one of my loved ones is sitting next to you or behind you, the regulator is coming to get you, and will get you.

[Ixixly]

I agree with you entirely Kalavo, you have to then make a decision on what else could go wrong and what you could do to mitigate such problems, this is the job of all Pilots irrespective of the law, to gather all available information and then make the safest decision based upon all available information. A broken fuel gauge itself isn't necessarily a fault that could indicate other further problems. As I stated though this is why you should bring it up with your Chief Pilot and/or HAAMC and/or a LAME, as I stated any defect whether major or minor should be inspected and then determine its level of effect on the safety of the aircraft.

My last company which also used MELs had this particular one written and stated that you could depart with one not working as long as the other was functional, you have and used a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel levels whenever practical and that fuel on board meets regulatory requirements.

Whoa, hang on a second there, In this situation your MEL told you to carry an extra hour of fuel and you couldn't depart without using a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel on board and have the other fuel gauge functioning. But how can you be certain the other fuel gauge is function properly? it might be going down as expected but what if it develops a fault and is actually overreading whilst the fuel tank is leaking? What if that Fuel Flow/Totaliser is also overreading and giving you false indications? What if you didn't realise you were on sloping ground when you dipped the tanks and therefore it isn't accurate? Yes you took actions to mitigate the risks but in the end pure bad luck could bring it all down, regardless of MEL or not. Theres always risks in Aviation, to believe that simply following all rules and regulations will always keep you safe is folly to say the least, but this doesn't excuse not doing everything reasonably within your power to mitigate all known and expected risks irrespective of what an MEL or rule or regulation tells you.

Honestly Kalavo, I think you and I are on the same page, I'm just trying to make my own point that MELs aren't the be all and end all, there just another layer of safety that common sense should, but can't always, provide. And I don't know about you, but certainly most S/E VFR Aircraft i've flown, I wouldn't really trust their fuel gauges, the IFR Twins were always great though, but they were of course maintained to a higher standard.

[Arnold E]

Fuel gauges in most GA aircraft are there to fill up the holes in the instrument panel, I wouldn't trust any of them.:uhoh:

[404 Titan]

Ixixly

No CP should ever ream a pilot for simply following the rules. These rules aren’t elective. In your example the CP is clearly the wrong person for the job. He should have instead been pressuring the owner to provide funding so that each aircraft had an approved MEL. The number of times stupid things like this ground an aircraft will soon make those that write the cheques realise and approved MEL/DDG is the way to go. When I introduced them we very quickly saw the benefits by being able to legally defer a great number of defects until a date limit, sector limit, hour limit or work shop visit.

I agree though MEL’s/DDG’s etc aren’t the be all end all but they will make what is clearly happening now with many GA operators legal but more importantly "a controlled system of defect management".

[Ixixly]

Titan 404, I think you misunderstood me, he didn't get reamed out for putting it down on the MR, there was never any doubt that it worthy of being placed on the MR as our MELs at the time had been written but were still pending approval, what he got reamed out for was doing it without bringing it to anyones attention, not the CP or Operations and then tieing the aircraft down at the end of the day and subsequently leaving the fact it had been grounded to be discovered the next day by another Pilot.

The company I was with didn't have problems spending money, hell, I myself grounded an aircraft one day because the alternate air cable have snapped off, it was an item required by the POH (Once again, this was just prior to our MELs, one of the many reasons we were getting them put in, but it seems you fully understand the benefits!!) so once brought to the attention of the Chief Pilot it was duly placed on the MR and an engineer was flown out to get it fixed ASAP.

[Sunfish]

Cream puff, I'm not. Arguing with regard to charter, I agree 100% that the paying public deserve to be carried in aircraft that comply.

I still have issues with what constitutes a defect and the way that defect may be cleared.

If we take the proverbial emu strike, and I detect a slight dent in the LE, where is the common sense in requiring an engineers presence when I can ring him, describe exactly the position and measurements of the ding and obtain his opinion if this is indeed a defect or no more than hangar rash.

Furthermore, if my c172 autopilot goes inop, am I supposed to terminate my day VFR flight?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Creampuff, it comes as no suprise to me that you are unwilling to accept anything other than the black and white version of all this, and I do not wonder why.

Titan, is a small patch of corrosion on the aileron a defect and grounds an aircraft ?, if so, you are truely out of touch.

[new direction]

MELS are a great idea and in practise work very well saving the operator and the client much pain and hardship. All companies big and small should operate using the added safety and flexibility a MEL offers. A MEL will cost approximately $2400.00 per type plus you can add an extra few dollars for individual intricacies for individual aircraft of that type. This amount of money can easily be saved the first time the MEL is used to save a charter which would otherwise be grounded. I would be very surprised if Barrier Aviation indeed operated that many aircraft with out so much as a simple MEL. If the company did operate with out one it is not a crime. But its not good business sense either.

N.D

[blackhand]

Like others I am nonplussed that someone would run a large fleet without a SOM or MEL. There is a generic MMEL (FAA) for SE aircraft that is easily used to generate an MEL for each aircraft type. As for costs of an MEL, they are simple and easy to write, well cut and paste anyway, so costs should be minimal.

Happy New Year

[Phil O'Rupp]

Sunfish, I think the concern after hitting an animal is not solely the dent it makes in the leading edge. What effect has the force that made the dent excerted on the underlying structure of the wing. Let's say I hit an emu or a roo near the wingtip at speed on landing. It makes a bit of a dent on the leading edge but doesn't look too bad aerodynamically. As a pilot am I qualified to determine that that's the only damage and the aircraft is safe to fly without being inspected by an engineer?

[404 Titan]

Ixixly

The only crime I can see the young pilot did was not telling someone “after” he made the entry, not for making the entry. It is the PIC legal responsibility to make the entries, not the CP or a maintenance controller/manager, etc. There is clearly an organisational problem in any operator if a pilot is required or feels compelled to report a maintenance issue prior to entering it on a MR. There is though a problem with any pilot who doesn’t report an item he/she has just entered in a MR, especially if it grounds an aircraft. I would’ve ripped any of my pilots a new A*** Hole for committing that crime.

[Trent 972]

There is clearly an organisational problem in any operator if a pilot is required or feels compelled to report a maintenance issue prior to entering it on a MR.
Big call 404.
I take it you don't phone/acars ahead with any maintenance issues so that your employer can gather the resources to correct the issue.
I know at a big red and white airline I work at, we do.
Maybe that is what a 'Snag' book does in GA.

[Ixixly]

Pretty sure we agree entirely then Titan 404, only last thing I realise I should clarify is that this was my first full-time job and as such there were a lot of other newbie pilots there as well, which was one of the main reasons the Chief Pilot wanted things like this brought to his attention first to make sure it was dealt with correctly, it was an oversight thing, not some kind of dodgey don't log safety issues things. So not so much an "Organisational Problem" as a recognition that newbie pilots don't always have the knowledge and/or experience and need experienced persons to help and guide them to make sure issues that pertain to safety are dealt with appropriately.

And he was mainly reamed out for not reporting it to anyone as you agreed was a big issue.

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

Corrosion of any sought is a defect just as torn upholstery on the interior is. Corrosion of any sort can most certainly ground any aircraft but only an engineer is qualified to make that call. Corrosion though on the outside of any aircraft isn’t suddenly going to appear if it is properly maintained and the pilot properly carries out a proper daily/pre flight inspected. In other words it isn’t the type of defect that is suddenly going to bight you on the b*m.

Simply calling me out of touch indicates to me your lack of a cohesive and sensible argument. I ask you again, find me a reference in the CAR’s, CAO’s etc to what a “Snag” is and I will eat humble pie.

Trent 972

If the defect arises in flight I do. I certainly don’t get the permission from engineering to right it up in the tech log. If the defect was discovered during a turn around it would be entered in the tech log, engineering would be informed and the aircraft would either be grounded or most likely the attending engineer would dispatch it under the appropriate MEL if possible.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

Phil has answered your question about what you describe as a ‘slight dent’. BTW, the engineer can clear the endorsement remotely. Furthermore, if my c172 autopilot goes inop, am I supposed to terminate my day VFR flight?Of course not. You’re not obliged to terminate, so it’s your choice.

And if it’s a private flight VFR and you would like to continue on your merry way after landing and refuelling, you are allowed to continue on your merry way after you have endorsed the MR with the inop A/P and placarded the A/P as inop.

And if it’s a charter or RPT flight and you would like to continue on your merry way after landing and refuelling, you are allowed to continue on your merry way if an inop A/P is a PUS/MEL item and you comply with the conditions applicable to flight with an inop A/P and you’ve endorsed the MR and placarded the A/P as inop.

SDT: Titan, is a small patch of corrosion on the aileron a defect and grounds an aircraft ?, if so, you are truely out of touch.I think you are truly failing to understand that entering a defect or damage on an MR does not necessarily ‘ground’ the aircraft. 404 explained it for you.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

On one hand you two are saying that a small patch of corrosion on the aileron is a defect and must be written up and will ground the aircraft.

On the other, you claim that it is possible to an open item on a MR.

I think you are truly failing to understand that entering a defect or damage on an MR does not necessarily ‘ground’ the aircraft. 404 explained it for you.

You clearly do not know how this is being enforced (20.18) out in the field by FOI / AWI/s, if its open, and not on the MEL, the aircraft is grounded, irrespective of the item being a defect, observation or wish list to santa claus.

Titan, the legislation deals with defect, what about items that are not defects ?, how can they be relayed to the company, so they can be looked at before becoming a defect ? ( have you read the last four or so pages of this thread ?).

A snag is not in the legislation, because snags are not defects.

To state that anything worthy of note is a defect, if you truly believe this, stay in your sheltered workplace, I think the real world might be a bit scary for you.

[psycho joe]

This thread has taken a decidedly interesting turn, considering the history of Horn Island.

Quite a few moons ago a Horn Island CP tried to introduce a "snag log" or as he called it a " supplementary MR" in the form of an exercise book.

When the Pilots were pressured to use this dodgy MR, they took their concerns to CASA. To say the least, snag logs or supplimentary MR's didn't go down too well with the regulator.

I'll never forget the look on the FOI's face as he was proudly presented the exercise book MR. Nor will I forget the screaming. :hmm:

[Creampuff]

SDT: Just goes to show that some FOIs and AWIs have as much understanding of the rules as some posters in this thread. ;)

BTW, the rules deal with damage as well as defects.

[aussie_hawk]

As to the question of MEL's and a SOM, I can say first hand that Barrier's Islanders on Horn Island were operated using both of these. Not sure of the couple that were leased, if they were the same. The Barrier SOM was I believe from my poor memory was based on the Manufacturer's recommend system of maintenance.

As to the said former employee, some of your current rumoured actions in regard current employees is despicable and bordering on the illegal and I pray that they are not true.

I hope that all can be resolved soon, with Barrier given every opportunity to return to the air.

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

“Snag” isn’t defined in the CAR’s, CAO’s etc because CASA defines all “Broken Items” for want of a better term as defects, period. The real problem is that some GA operators refuse to pay for and set up a suitable MEL/DDG/CDL system. By the way if properly set up and worded correctly in the OPS manual, most defects that can be deferred under a MEL can be left unsigned for by an engineer until passing through home base if an engineer can’t be found in an outport.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that a properly set up and approved MEL/DDG/CDL will essentially allow what is done unofficially and illegally now with a “Snag Log” by some operators to be done legally. This is why I put my balls on the line about 15 years ago and convinced my boss to fork out the dosh and set one up.

Again you resort to character assignation rather than debating the man. How about we keep it civil. I might work for a major airline now but I spent 13 years in FNQ including the Straits and PNG. I think I know what I am talking about.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Again you resort to character assignation rather than debating the man.Oh, stop it.

because CASA defines all “Broken Items” for want of a better term as defects, periodYou are just not listening are you ?.

Not all observations are defects.

For another example, did you read the couple of posts about the oil consumption of 1.5 qts per hour ? (posts 168, 170, 174 and 176 ).

Normally the pilot observes oil consumption of less than 1 qts per hour.

This particular aircraft is noted to be consuming around 1.5 qts per hour.

The limit in the engine or aircraft manual is 2 qts per hour.

If this 1.5 qts is written on an MR, even though it is below the limit in the aircraft / maintenance manual, it will be deemed unservicable and defective as it is not in the MEL as it is not a "broken" piece of equipment.

If the 1.5 qts per hour observation is not passed on to the maintenance controller, it will not be programmed to be investigated until it is a real defect, i.e. 2 qts per hour or greater oil consumption.

If you respond with the " you can write the 1.5 qts per hour on an MR and have it as an open item and you will be OK", I will respond no further.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that a properly set up and approved MEL/DDG/CDL will essentially allow what is done unofficially and illegally now with a “Snag Log” by some operators to be done legally.That is partially true, but I say again, I am not talking about genuine defects, there are issues other than defects.

Snags are not defects, so they are not covered by legislation one way or the other.

Forrest for the trees.

Snags are not defects, but will need attention.

A defect is a defect, so what if a "snag" is not in the base legislation.

I wish I could see things as simply as you do, black and white.

[Arnold E]

This particular aircraft is noted to be consuming around 1.5 qts per hour.


All the other aircraft in the fleet consume 1qt and this one consumes 1.5. How do you know it is not defective in some way?? Broken oil ring for instance, how did you come to the conclusion that this engine was ok despite having significantly higher consumption than the rest of the fleet? Remember, 2qts is only the maximum allowed.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

And we all wonder why GA is dieing.

:ugh:

[Creampuff]

But why on earth would you enter the endorsement: "Oil consumption of 1.5 qts per hour", when each uplift of oil should be recorded on the MR/approved equivalent anyway? The rate of oil consumption for each engine is evident on the face of the MR/approved equivalent, isn't it? :confused:

[OpsNormal]

Stop for a moment, all of you.

Between all of you not many of you agree with (what should be) a simple concept of either broken or not, or written up or not.

No wonder CASA front line staff have the same issues.....

I'm not CASA, nor am I ever likely to work for them, however if you lot cannot agree then what hope do they have? The FOI's that I have dealt with on previous occasions are just people trying to earn a living like you and I.

I will only add one other concept to the discussion, if only to cast some illumination of something that has been overlooked....

What does the preamble of Barrier's Master MEL/S.O.M say in relation to aircraft defects or items that do not fall into the bounds of the applicable MEL? I would suggest to most of you that without knowledge of that document many of you are piddling directly into a stiff breeze...

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

You keep referring to “Snag” when under the reg’s no differentiation is legally provided for. We all at sometime shake our head with some of the reg’s but unfortunately we are bound by them. We must all work within them. You cannot just pick and choose which ones you wish to adhere to and you certainly can’t just keep making stuff up to suite your own particular argument or point of view.

Regarding the oil consumption, there should be some system of monitoring the health of all aircraft in an operator’s fleet. In my last GA Company that I was CP of, as well as having MEL’s and CDL which were part of our system of maintenance which in turn broadly followed Cessna’s system of maintenance for each aircraft type, we also had trend monitoring. On every flight the PIC had to record all the engine parameters on the tech log page which were uploaded to computer the next morning for the maintenance controller and engineering to look over and take action if something was observed out of the ordinary. Again these types of things shouldn’t just jump out at you but if they do, alarm bells should start ringing.

While CASA and Federal Government policy should most certainly be blamed for a lot of GA’s problems, some of the problems though are self inflicted.

OpsNormal

Between all of you not many of you agree with (what should be) a simple concept of either broken or not, or written up or not.
I don’t think that is the case at all. If something is broken it is broken and is therefore a defect by definition and must be written up.
What does the preamble of Barrier's Master MEL/S.O.M say in relation to aircraft defects or items that do not fall into the bounds of the applicable MEL? I would suggest to most of you that without knowledge of that document many of you are piddling directly into a stiff breeze...
That type of stuff is usually covered in the pre-amble of most MEL’s and from what I have seen are pretty generic, i.e. if not covered must be serviceable. They also usually say any item which is related to airworthiness and aren’t included in the MEL are automatically required to be working.

[Defenestrator]

I can't find fault with anything you've said 404 Titan. In fact the organisation I work with has an almost identical system and attitude towards defects ie. anything that isn't as it should be. Only difference is that, in addition to the MEL, we also have an 'advisory' section on the AML that covers the snags that Shed Dog Tosser is eluding to. These however, are written up in consultation with the HAAMC to ensure that further flight in the aircraft is safe (and legal) sans a LAME directly inspecting the defect. Furthermore advisory AML's can be also be entered by Engineering if they're seeking further feedback on a fault, especially if not able to be replicated on the ground.

No mystical 'snag books' necessary and complete transparency provided throughout, most importantly, to the next operating crew.

No doubt I'll be shot down by the usual suspects that believe common sense should prevail as a form of regulation. Unfortunately, from what I've observed, common sense isn't very common these days.

D :ok:

[FlyingHighStayingLow]

CASA definitely barking up the wrong tree here. Barrier's one of the better operators in the top end. From what ive heard, they never expect their pilots to do anymore than they feel comfortable with. So with CASA saying they force their pilots to fly u/s aircraft, then it'll be interesting to see what comes out in court.

I know of other operators who have made their pilots fly u/s aircraft, simply because they employ low hour pilots. If the pilots kick up a stink they'll show them the door and get someone else in. In fact the Barrier pilots were the ones getting paid out for grounding their aircraft.

Lets face it, GA is in a hole right now (thanks to CASA). Barrier seems like one of those operators who care about their staff, as if they work a 'normal-non-aviation' job! If they go under then GA's sinking further into the ground. Is this the beginning of the end?

[thorn bird]

There is a classic demonstration of how inane current Australian regulations and their enforcement have become and the cost impact
on the industry contained in an article by Paul Phelan in the aviation advertiser.
A company operated a light jet into Bathurst, about a 15 to 20 minute flight from Home base Bankstown.
On landing the PIC found the HF aerial had detached and was trailing behind the aircraft.
Now I would have thought just get the local engineer to undo the other end and ferry to Bankstown, HF is hardly required on that leg.
Nevertheless the pilot did the right thing and notified the maintenance controller who notified CASA. Ah its an aerial, therefore radio, therefore a LAME is not qualified to undo one hexagonal nut, so the company had to dispatch an E&I guy in another aircraft to remove the hexagonal nut.
Doesn't end there...an engineering order must be issued because equipment has been removed from the aircraft $600 bucks thank you, Oh and removing that aerial US's the HF so you need a PUS to fly the aircraft
another $600 Bucks thank you, too late in the afternoon to issue that come back tomorrow.
End result about ten grand for a 50 cent fix, a patient booked for surgery in Sydney sent back to the local hospital, crew overnighted etc.
This is basically regulation for fees or profits or directors bonuses take your pick.
There is a limit to what the punters are prepared to pay for a service, that's what these clowns at CASA do not realize. As it gets more and more expensive through crap regulation so they will look for alternatives.
I have heard of clients dropping their weekly trip to the country as too expensive and catching a regional to an intermediate point then renting a
car for the rest of the journey. Great thing about that is if they kill themselves on the road CASA is blameless.
Complicated indecipherable Regulation does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Mountains of paper work and tics in boxes does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Need an example look to the USA, its two thirds cheaper to charter the same aircraft there as here, and they leave Australia for dead in the safety stakes.
Mr Phelan also has a great article on the Australian Aviation Associations Forum Aviation Policy, I would recommend everyone read it, it can be downloaded from the Regional Airline association Web sight. Get behind them while we still have an industry.

[404 Titan]

Defenestrator

Thanks for that. I’m actually sympathetic to Shed Dog Tosser’s point of view. The point I’ve been trying to make with him though is he must do it within the current rules. All MEL’s CDL’s and systems of maintenance must be accepted by CASA. Your company has quite clearly had the enlightenment to get such a system approved. It truly amazes me there are some operators out there that still operate to a generic MR and 100 hourly’s.

[Creampuff]

If only the light jet operator had been smart enough to employ the likes of 404 Titan or Defenestrator (whoever they may be) ....

[Arnold E]

It is interesting to see what some pilots are prepared to fly. I had recently a situation where there was a 310 that I could have been asked to fly on. The right engine was no problem, we routinely start engines for various tests. The left engine, however was a totally different ball game. Was very difficult to start and could only be kept running in the first few minutes by turning the boost pump on and off. When it was warm it would idle, sort of. Now here was a situation where the engine had an obvious fault. Now the pilot turns up (also a LAME) and says, yep it is always like that.
Pardon?? that engine was obviously faulty, ( to the extent that I would not fly in the aircraft), yet the pilot was quite happy to jump in and fly it away, and put passengers in it the next day. Not a "dicky bird on the MR".
On top of that, the aircraft was a general piece of junk!

[jas24zzk]

there is clearly a difference if you are prepared to think about it.

Unofficial snag logs do have benefits, if used correctly.

The first thing to do is make sure it is on board the a/c.

I used to direct hire a lovely arrow that had an on board snag log. there were 5 pilots authorised to use the aircraft and we used the snag log to record observations. The 5 of us rarely met up so it was our way of communicating the aeroplanes status.

I returned from a night flight once, noted a fault and wasn't sure if i should put it on the MR, made a note in the snag log with the annotation MR entry required??? I wasn't calling the owner at 3am in the morning :ugh: I wasn't sure!
the aircraft flew the next day, and that pilot contacted the owner and transferred my snag to the MR. the item only affected IFR flight not vfr so that was fine.

Another time i collected the aircraft, the entry in the snag log was that the the cargo net had failed. Not enough to ground the aircraft, but affected my flight as i needed the net for the return journey. If it wasn't there i would have embarked on my trip only to find i had a problem at the other end.

A good snag log should be:-
1. available to all that operate the aircraft
2. Include a column for snags resolution. i.e entered onto MR or scheduled for next 100 hrly.

Whilst they are not regulated, i think they have a place if available to the pilot

[jas24zzk]

Like the guy above me..
It WAS a MR required entry, OK, you didnt know that.
But what if it was a VFR required item. Or the next guy flew it IFR..
And that is the very point i made about the 'snag sheet' being in the aircraft as opposed to in the office. The fault was there for someone with more experience than me to make the call on. What if i had simply sent the owner a text with my concerns? at least the next guy had something to read


heck the snag might be as simple as a torn seat trim. Not enough to ground the a/c but probably one that the owner wants fixed next maintenance.

so many times i have seen aeroplanes go into maint with similar faults that the owner wanted fixed, and they come back the same because it wasn't documented

[weighman]

Some of you might not have been in the game at the time, but the same situation happened in Albury NSW in the 80's to a company called arcas airways.

It caused everyone involved, including CASA, a lot of grief and there was a senate enquiry. Google Arcas airways and it will lead you to a CASA article as recent as 2000. Note the recommendations.

CASA has a lot of precedent on the subject and nothing will change re snags/defects. Believe me, after 46 years as a LAME, the rule hasn't and won't change. I have been stung in my life.

Alligator air is the latest example.

Not entering unserviceabilities on the MR is like falsifying your tax return.:=

[weighman]

While everyone is going on this "black letter" technicality with all the wisdom of a " bush lawyer", remember it is not only CASA that takes an interest in the documentation. The aircraft insurer might find the lack of documentation could jeopardise a claim if an accident occurs!!!!!:\

[404 Titan]

jas24zzk

As I said a few posts back I sympathise with your point of view but every time you conduct a flight in this manner you as the PIC put your balls on the line. The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”. If, god forbid you were involved in an accident and survived, even if you weren’t at fault, as well as being hung out to dry by CASA without a leg to stand on you would, as alluded to by weighman, most likely be held financially liable for everything i.e. hull loss/damage and injury/loss of life to pax by the insurance company. Hell even the DPP for the state could even have grounds to charge you with manslaughter. I’m not sure how you would set up a system for a privately own aircraft but I’m sure someone here would be willing to give you some advice or at least point you and the owner of the aircraft you fly in the right direction.

[Sunfish]

What I think appears to be happening is the confusion over the question of the condition of a bit of aircraft system which has a continuous range of values (eg Oil pressure) and a bit of system that has onlyTwo possible values (ie: works/doesn't work).


If CASA wish to mandate that an aircraft for charter has to have a working landing light today even though the aircraft is only tasked to perform day vfr operations, then while it may be costly and unnecessary to ground the aircraft until its fixed, it's the law unless you have a MEL or PUS. The question then becomes what is the cheapest way to generate those documents?

What concerns me is the allegation by some here that the recording of condition information, even within limits, on the MR requires a sign off by a LAME.

For example, if I write up a dodgy autopilot in an MR (which I have once) is anybody alleging that the aircraft cannot be flown legally in non commercial operations without a sign off from someone?

[Creampuff]

The heart of this problem is some industry folklore: "Any endorsement on an MR/approved equivalent automatically 'grounds' the aircraft."

It's frogsh*t. And if an FOI or AWI tells you that any endorsement on an MR/approved equivalent 'grounds' the aircraft, tell him/her s/he's speaking frogsh*t. (BTW, I've not met one that takes this simplistic, and wrong, view.)

Whether an endorsement 'grounds' an aircraft depends on:
1. the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be engaged
2. the flight rules (VFR v IFR) under which the aircraft is proposed to be operated
3. whether passengers are proposed to be carried
4. whether the subject of the endorsement is a passenger comfort item
5. the schedule of maintenance or system of maintenance in accordance with which the aircraft is required to be maintained
6. whether the aircraft is subject to a PUS/MEL etc.
7. whether flight with the damage or defect is otherwise approved (e.g. through an SFP)
8. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'equipment' or an 'instrument' 'fitted to the aircraft' that is not 'serviceable'
9. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'maintenance that is required to be carried out before the commencement of the flight, or that will be required to be carried out before the expiration of the flight, to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under' the regulations.

There is at least one 'black and white' issue, here: Any defect or damage must be endorsed on the MR/approved equivalent.

[404 Titan]

Sunfish

Even under the standard MR/100hrly maintenance system there is nothing illegal about a privately owned aircraft running an engine trend log. The standard MR doesn’t provide for and really isn’t the right place for this information to be noted unless of course it’s outside limits. The important thing is the trend log isn’t being used to document items that are “Broken”. If though you have a dodgy auto pilot then it MUST be written up on the MR. Before further flight the auto pilot MUST be fixed or correctly labels as U/S and signed off accordingly by a suitably qualified LAME. That is the law and it is pretty black & white on this matter.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”.

Really Titan, which piece of legislation are you referring too ?.

[Up-into-the-air]

From Thornbird, some references:

Aviation forum’s formula for recovery – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/12/aviation-forums-formula-for-recovery/)

RAAA: TAAAF Policy Document (http://www.raaa.com.au/issues/taaaf-policy-document.html)

The current Senate Inquiry should also be remembered at:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-48.html

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

How about this part just for starters:

CAR 50 Par 1 & 2

50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release

(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.

(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) the aircraft has suffered major damage;

a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”.

Yeh, I thought so, the "law" doesn't even mention snag, observation or wish list to Santa Claus, as I said:

Titan, the legislation deals with defects, what about items that are not defects ?, how can they be relayed to the company, so they can be looked at before becoming a defect ? ( have you read the last four or so pages of this thread ?).

A snag is not in the legislation, because snags are not defects.

So, you still don't understand......................

[megle2]

Snag book / aircraft notebook - whatever it was called was handy when used as a " personality" record of aircraft

Ie Pilot does Pre flight and notices stall warning breaker popped, he was the last pilot and had not noticed it on shutdown, no one handy to ask, resets breaker and no problem rest of the day.
Reports to CP on return. No action taken. Would be handy for next pilot if there was a note listing what had occurred. Ditto for a prop synch that was always spot on but now appeared to be a bit lazy.

Nothing's broken to enter on MR. Can't make note on MR as Casa definitely won't allow open items in this region so do you just forget about it

Why couldn't the AOC holder incorporate a note book into OM for comments such as above or have I been away from GA too long and lost the plot

[Creampuff]

No, SDT, it's you does not understand, because you continue to make the mistake of considering your amateur technical judgement to be the same as objective technical fact.

You make the decision as to what's a 'snag' and what's a 'defect'. Problem is, you're not legally qualified or legally authorised to make that call.

But, you're free to ignore anyone with whom you disagree. Good luck when CASA taps you on the shoulder.

[Trent 972]

404 Titan, first of all I will admit to leaning towards S D T's argument here, but none the less you are putting up a good fight too.
With reference to your last post and also to your previous calls for a definition of 'snag', are you able to provide a definition of 'Defect' as it pertains to this discussion?
Referring to your quote of CAR Par(t) 1 & 2 "50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release" the beginning of that document has a definitions section.
I quote all the definitions from the last of the C's to the first of the E's....... no definition of 'defect'.

current flight plan means the flight plan, with any changes brought about by subsequent air traffic control clearances and air traffic control instructions.
daily inspection, in relation to an aircraft, means:
(a) if the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection referred to in Part 1 of the schedule; and
(b) if the aircraft is not maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection required to be carried out under:
(i) the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule; or
(ii) the aircraft’s approved system of maintenance;
before the start of flying operations on each day that the aircraft is to be flown.
danger area means an area declared under regulation 6 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 to be a danger area.
dangerous lights means any lights which may endanger the safety of aircraft, whether by reason of glare, or by causing confusion with or preventing clear visual reception of aeronautical lights or signals.
design standard means:
(a) a design standard in force under regulation 21 or 21A; or
(b) a design standard (however described) identified in:
(i) a type certificate; or
(ii) a type acceptance certificate; or
(iii) a supplemental type certificate: or
(iv) an Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under subregulation 21.303 (9) of CASR; or
(v) an Australian Technical Standard Order mentioned in paragraph 21.601 (2) (a) of CASR.
dual flying means flying in an aircraft fitted with fully functioning dual controls for the purpose of receiving flying training from a person who is authorised by these regulations to give the training.
elevation means the vertical distance of a point or a level on or affixed to the surface of the earth, measured from mean sea level.

With that in mind, I doubt anyone will be able to define 'snag', unless of course you will accept the Macquarie Dictionary definition
, as casa does with the definition of 'imminent' as used in suspending Barrier's AOC.
from casa Enforcement Manual.
What is an Imminent Risk?
“Imminent” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as meaning “likely to occur at any moment, impending: war is imminent”. The concept of imminence does not equate with the concept of immediacy. As Professor Sir John Smith QC has observed the term “imminent”, in the context of the criminal law defence of necessity, can include circumstances where a threat is “hanging over” a person even though there is no immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm:

Relying on the definition of 'defect' in CAAP 51-1(2) (www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/Airworth/51_1.pdf) could lead to the ridiculous i.e.. "bug squashed on leading edge of wing" (an insignificant imperfection but none the less than defined)
CASA regards a DEFECT as any defect that is not a major defect and is something that is an imperfection that impairs the structure, composition, or function of an object or system of an aircraft or component.
How the hell can us mere plebs 'do the right thing' when the legislation is so difficult to comprehend.
If the Act does not define 'defect', then no wonder there can be so much confusion as to what should be recorded.

[Creampuff]

There is no confusion about what must be recorded. The problem is the fear caused by the folklore about the consequences of recording something.

[Trent 972]

Then creampuff, provide a link to the definition of 'defect' or are you my wife, because she's the only person I know, who knows everything.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make you right, give us the proof!

[blackhand]

Seems some are hearing but not understanding.
There is nothing to prevent entering a non airworthiness item on part two of the MR or equivelant, and it can stay open til transferred to Inspection work pack or to the newly issued MR if required.
These would include cosmetic defects.

Hitting animals, whether inflight or on the ground, requires an inspection, and release to service.

Intermittent or fluctuating indicators (gauges) require repair or deferal under MEL/PUS or an SPF.

[Creampuff]

As I'm single, I doubt I'm your wife, Trent. ;)

You answered your own question in your own post, above!

When I see a bug squashed on a leading edge, I clean it off. But perhaps I have no common sense....

There are people who have suggested, in this thread, that a ding in a leading edge, caused by a collision with a 'roo, is appropriately the subject of a 'snag sheet' rather than endorsement in the MR/approved equivalent.

The people whom CASA busts aren't the folks who choose not to endorse an MR with: "bug squashed on leading edge of left wing", or who fly an aircraft with that endorsement 'open' on the MR.

[Trent 972]

For an industry that is ruled by reams of prescriptive rules, can it really be that the only definition of 'defect' is one in CAAP 51-1 (www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/Airworth/51_1.pdf)?
CAAPs provide guidance, interpretation and explanation on complying with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) or Civil Aviation Orders (CAO).
This CAAP provides advisory information to the aviation industry in support of a particular CAR or CAO. Ordinarily, the CAAP will provide additional ‘how to’ information not found in the source CAR, or elsewhere.
A CAAP is not intended to clarify the intent of a CAR, which must be clear from a reading of the regulation itself, nor may the CAAP contain mandatory requirements not contained in legislation.
Note: Read this advisory publication in conjunction with the appropriate
regulations/orders.
The whole reason this thread has taken this turn is that while creamy, titan, blackhand may be secure in their own knowledge of the subject, there is no where in the rule book that spells it out, despite the reams of rules.
Regulatory reform,.... bah humbug!

edit for blackhand.
I have no qualms with what you say, but it is a matter of degrees, i.e.. common-sense.
It is ok to hit a beetle but not a kangaroo. Therefore is it ok to hit a pigeon but not a pelican?
The only reason I can think of that 'defect' is not defined, is so that the b@stards can hang you out to dry on wishy washy rules, if they decide you're the one they're going to pick on today.
Good luck trying to run a business under those rules.

[Fission]

A CASA AWI not more that 2 months ago stated that an aircraft cannot fly with an open defect in Part 2. It must be cleared or transferred to Part 1.

I'm not talking about passenger convenience items - I'm talking radios and Nav lights.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

There are people who have suggested, in this thread, that a ding in a leading edge, caused by a collision with a 'roo, is appropriately the subject of a 'snag sheet' rather than endorsement in the MR/approved equivalent.

Now Creamy, that's just untrue.

Post 189
Really, what if a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?.

That example, which it would appear you entirely missed was about, to quote you, subjective opinion over objective assessment, I'm surprised you missed that,,,,Hmmmmm.

The people whom CASA busts aren't the folks who choose not to endorse an MR with: "bug squashed on leading edge of left wing", or who fly an aircraft with that endorsement 'open' on the MR.

I believe, generally with CASA, they don't bust anyone, they usually "administrative action" them into insolvency, no need for due process, no natural justice, no presenting evidence, no cross examination, I feel it is quite cowardly.

Hi blackhand,

There is nothing to prevent entering a non airworthiness item on part two of the MR or equivelant, and it can stay open til transferred to Inspection work pack or to the newly issued MR if required.
These would include cosmetic (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=7615046#) defects.

Do you mean non defect or damage ?.

How about you go and re-read pages 7 thru 9, where this was discussed, i.e.how it is being applied by many FOI / AWI's.

[blackhand]

Tosser of shed dogs,
There is no need to reread misinformation.
If you remain firm yet civil with your AWI/FOI you will find that they will research and advise you correctly. Remember, everything your AWI/FOI recommends is authorised by a higher authority than the local branch.

Then again maybe things are different in the Shed Dog world??

but it is a matter of degrees, i.e.. common-sense.
It is ok to hit a beetle but not a kangaroo. Therefore is it ok to hit a pigeon but not a pelican?
This seems to me to be a specious argument.
Have you in fact give the answer in you question?

[Obidiah]

In the absence of a CASA "defect" definition the dictionary definition will suffice, common dog really, it is defective in some manner. Can still be operational though.

Not sure I'm with the SDT's interp. on snag not being a defect, it is, otherwise it wouldn't be a point of interest to mention.

You can fly with an open MR entry, just depends on what that entry is, generally it needs to be major damage/defect or inop mandatory equipment that effects the airworthiness to effect a grounding.

Pilots are legally permitted to make a call on what constitutes an airworthiness critical defect or damage, rightly or wrongly. Just be conservative in the call as you are liable for what you write.

The torn seat upholstery example; A large tear is a defect but the seat is still perfectly operational and the aircraft can be considered safe to fly.

In the right company a Snags list for cosmetic items and things such as surface corrosion, slightly worn fittings etc,., the things pilots notice that engineers don't get the time to is a great system. In the wrong company it can get out of hand and detract from an effective MR system.

Maintenance release to cease to be in force

(ii) the aircraft has suffered major damage or has developed a
major defect, other than damage or a defect that is a
permissible unserviceability;

[Creampuff]

Fission, your example doesn't help unless you provide details of the classification of the operation in which the aircraft was proposed to be used, the rules (VFR v IFR) under which the aircraft was proposed to be operated, etc, etc down the list of nine items I stated above.

This is the problem writ large. A statement is made by a CASA AWI in the context of a specific aircraft in specific operational circumstances, and it's extrapolated to be the blanket rule for all aircraft in all operational circumstances. FFS. :ugh::ugh:

I think you're being a little disingenuous, SDT. Your 'roo example was in the context of your 'snag sheet' argument. As a matter objective technical and regulatory fact, the damage must be recorded in the MR/approved equivalent, and it's not the pilot's call on whether the aircraft is airworthy. And you're not the only person posting on this thread, and you're not the only person who used that as an example too.