Defects, Maintenance Releases and Schedule 5

[blackhand]

Leadsled noted on the Barrier thread..... Sadly, many GA tyres are thrown away with life remaining, at great expense, at an annual/100h inspection, because of a stupidity in Schedule 5. Serviceability of an aircraft tyre does not depend on the weather forecast for a flight. Tootle pip!!

The question is how much discretion does the workshop have in releasing a GA aircraft to service?

[Clearedtoreenter]

That's a VERY good question!

[tnuc]

Where does Schedule 5 say you have to throw servicable tyres away ?
My understanding is that the LAME inspects the tyres, if they are serviceable - i.e within manufacturers limits for use then they can remain in service.

In this case it is possible that tyres may be worn to a point that they only last a few Hrs beyond his inspection, but they can stay on the aircraf

In GA the responsibility then falls on the Registered Owner/Operator and Pilots daily inspections to pick find and take action if the tyres wear out and require replacing during the period the maintenance release is in force.

Unforunatly many Registered Owners/Operators during the validity of their Mainteance Release will ignore the now worn out tyre untill the next inspection. Whose fault is that ?

[Creampuff]

CAR 43(7) says:(7) A maintenance release may be issued in respect of an aircraft only if:

(a) all maintenance in respect of the aircraft required to be carried out to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under these regulations has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or

(b) [not relevant – SFP flight].Bloggs the LAME has been asked to carry out a periodic inspection of an aircraft in accordance with Schedule 5 and issue an MR for it. Let’s keep it simple to start with, and ignore whether the aircraft is to be released to charter, aerial work or private operations.

Bloggs has just completed a thorough check of all items listed in Schedule 5, to determine whether those items will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection due in 12 months or 110 TIS, whichever comes first, as well as a diligent review of all ADs applicable to an aircraft.

Let’s continue to keep it simple to start with, and assume that the only thing that worries Bloggs is the nosewheel tyre. Bloggs determines that the nosewheel tyre has (to use Leaddie’s words) ‘life remaining’, but Bloggs is concerned that the remaining life may be used up before the next periodic inspection will become due.

Bloggs conservatively judges that there are about 12 landings left in the tyre. Bloggs is confident that at least that number of landings will be carried out before the next periodic inspection.

Bloggs issues the MR with this entry in Part 1: “Nose wheel tyre to be replaced no later than 12 landings carried out after [date of issue of MR]”

What rule has Bloggs broken?

For those who point out that that the remaining tyre life could be wiped out in one, brakes-on landing, I note that precisely the same thing could happen even if Bloggs fitted a new tyre before releasing the aircraft. (That’s why there are rules about pre-flight inspections and recording of defects.)

Let’s add one small complication. Let’s assume Bloggs also puts this entry in Part 1: “Engine oil and oil filter change to be carried out no later than xxxx hours TTIS”. [xxxx is 50 hours after the TTIS when the MR was issued.] Bloggs adds that entry, because Bloggs determined from the approved maintenance data for the aircraft that the engine requires oil changes every 50 hours TIS.

What rule has Bloggs broken?

If it’s OK to issue an MR with an entry requiring an oil change before the next periodic inspection may fall due, why doesn’t the same concept apply to tyres with ‘life remaining’?

Let’s do blown nav light bulbs next….

PS: I agree, completely, with tnuc.

[LeadSled]

tnuc.
The point I was trying to make is that it is up to the LAME to determine that the aircraft will make it to the next annual/100h inspection ---- within the terms of para. 2.7 of Schedule 5 (If that is what you are using per. the Log Book Statement).

Many LAMEs I know, for PPP (Positive Posterior Protection) simply take the position that, if the tyres and brakes are new/overhauled, no AWI can have a go at them on those components.

In my view, the whole concept of the LAME being responsible (per. para. 2.7) for anything that is no longer under his control is quite wrong.

Once the aircraft leaves the hangar with its nice new, pristine and un-smudged MR, all bets are off, and the responsibility for the continued serviceability should fall to the registered owner, who does have control of the aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

Creampuff, I am not sure there is a requirement to even enter it on the MR. If it passes serviceable criterea at the inspection it is fit for flight.
Lasting for the annual/100 hour period is, as you suggested, a very subjective matter.
My maintenance provider recently contacted me to let me know that the main tyre would probably only last til the 50 and to order a new one now, incidently 850 X 6 Dunlop @ $390 plus gst plus freight. No MR entry required as far as he was concerned- Aerial work by the way.

[Creampuff]

Folklore, Leaddie.

It's depressing that ostensibly intelligent people believe it and spread it. :ugh:

So Leaddie, how do all those scared LAMEs protect themselves against the risk of engine failures after the MR has been issued? By your logic, 2.7 results in the LAME being responsible for an engine that fails 85 hours later, because everyone forgets to check and top up the oil during that period.

I'll have to think more about the scenario, BH. It seems to me that if the inspection determines that the inspected component may not remain airworthy until the next periodic inspection, the inspecting LAME should enter something on the MR.

[Mach E Avelli]

A pilot approved to update the GPS data base would enter the action in the MR and the calendar date of the next due update. As the MR could be valid for 12 months, there could be quite a few of these entries.
Now, question - if the aircraft runs past the due date of the next GPS update can it fly? Probably, but presumably an entry would then need to be made that the GPS was not to be used for navigation. Presumably, THAT particular entry would be made by a LAME. I know how it works in MEL - land, but this antiquated MR form that is still in use in GA is something else. Educate me.

[Creampuff]

In what classification of operation do you wish to engage the aircraft? Do you have to fly IFR? Is the GPS etc etc, down the list of 9 issues in the other thread. It always depends on the answer to each of the questions in that list.

If, for example, someone wants to operate the aircraft in day VFR aerial work, I don’t see what rule would prohibit that from happening, with an open entry on the MR: “GPS data base to be updated no later than [date X]”, beyond date X. I’ll have a think about it, but I anticipate that the rules would require a placard somewhere on the GPS display, stating that the data base is out of date.

[Old Akro]

Are you sure the early replacement of parts isn't profit driven and the regs used as the excuse?

[tnuc]

Common Sence must prevail. Its hard to understand LAMEs would be using the regs as an excuse to change tyres etc for a quick buck. Most GA types are in such a state of disrepair and are carrying so many defects that you don't have to look far to spend the $$ fixing actual defects.

[Mach E Avelli]

Getting back to the GPS data base example. "Common sense" tells me that an aircraft does not need this optional extra to fly either VFR or IFR, provided that the other equipment is sufficient to navigate with and the route does not require it.
But the words 'common sense' and 'legal" strike me as an oxymoron. Particularly with our fcuked up regulations. So, at database expiry date it becomes an open entry unless cleared by update or some other signature to continue without update? Yes? No?

[Creampuff]

Gosh MEA, you seem to be a little stressed.

If the MR has an entry that says: "GPS nav data base to be updated no later than 1 January 2013", and it's now past 1 January 2013, take 3 deep breaths and relax.

I'm good friends with people who would be happy to fly that aircraft, day VFR, with the entry still 'open' on the MR. I'm happy to sit in the back of the aircraft.

Those people regularly fly aircraft with a few entries open on the MR. Those people are also suspicious of MRs that have no entries. So am I.

[blackhand]

A MR release inspection is certified for and on behalf of a CAR 30 organisation.
The org issues the MR. AFAIK (disclaimer)

[baron_beeza]

I can't think of many organisations that would allow an aircraft to fly with an 'open' entry.

None I maintain, or fly, ever have. This is GA, charter, airline and military. (and in many countries at that).

I would get very nervous with any operator that tried that one on. Just my background and experience possibly....

I would be much happier with the PIC to endorse the entry with some closing action and stating how and why he is declaring the aircraft as serviceable.

[Creampuff]

We are therefore probably talking about different kinds of 'open' entries.

Let's assume an aircraft has 1,000 TTIS.

Its MR includes these endorsements:

- Engine oil and oil filter change to be carried out no later than 1050 TTIS.

- Pitot system leak check to be carried out no later than 1050 TTIS.

- Left hand nav light bulb blown.

Which of the open entries, precisely, are you worried about?

[Frank Arouet]

Get real Creampuff;

We argued this ad nauseum when you "lost" my evidence.

Common sense goes out the window when nepotism is the order of the day.

We discussed the problem with schedule 4 and found that the aircraft was only serviceable at the time of inspection. There was no warranty of fitness expressed or implied about what would happen in the legal "forseability" over the course of the next 100 hours/ 12 months.

Your lot put to evidence my gripe was with the engineer, however, being mates of mates, and as I didn't order the MR, the onus of the engineers resonsibility was to the vendor who did the dodgy MR.

BTW: where are my fabric samples, the propeller bracket, the rusted fuselage tubes, the documetation that had the A/C immersed in salt water in NG, the rivets that fell out of the starboard wing, the fuel injectors, etc. etc. which I still have details on hard paperwork.

My Act of Grace payment was via Dept of Finance, (Slipper of all people), and CAsA have never admitted liability in any way shape or form.

Don't preach on this forum about leagalise.

Ring me. If I'm sober I may talk to you, or you can make an appointment via the PM system. Otherwise keep your pompous pious ridicule to yourself until we have at least 20 beers at the Wig and Pen where we will be on equal terms.

Fcuk me mate!

PS. Stay out of this Blackfinger.

[Ixixly]

With the GPS's i've had in GA so far, any that never had their databases updated (Which was most as honestly it wasn't really necessary and we never had any problems) were placarded as being "DAY VFR ONLY" or something to that effect on them or in the case of the Bendix Kings used in Airvans it was actually a message on startup that it was for VFR use only. I should mention that these ones were of course installed in the Aircraft not handheld.

Mach E Avelli, in the only Aircraft i've flown IFR that had a GPS, we regularly did the update, can't remember anyone having to be specifically trained or approved for it, of course we were shown how to use the Garmin Update Program beforehand and it was often flown out-of-date on VFR operations, not IFR, sometimes it would just be busy or end up away from base for a few days and go out of date. I can't remember the MR ever having any entries related to the GPS being updated, that info was kept on a board in the Chief Pilots office and as usual Pilots required to check before flight, both board and GPS, never had CASA say anything about this to us.

[Progressive]

The level of confusion that abounds around the maintenance release astounds me given the relatively simple nature of the form and the availability of a CAAP (43.1) explaining its use.
Firstly there is nothing to prevent open entries on the MR past the 100 hourly inspection (as per the oil change mentioned above). The purpose of an MR is to record which maintenance will be due before the next major inspection. In the case of open entries which effect the operational status of the aircraft (EG: IFR orVFR) the CAAP gives clear instructions on how it should be endorsed to restrict this operation.

As for the LAME's liability to ensure continued operation until the next major inspection this is not strictly true. Under the CAR's and CASR's A LAME is held responsible for a part until it is "Repaired, replaced or inspected" thus the tire mentioned above could be legally released as serviceable for as little as one flight with the LAME absolved of responsibility for it after the first pre-flight inspection.

As for the LAME changing your tire "prematurely" this is always a cost benefit analysis between changing a tire during the 100 hourly (wheels already off to grease the bearings but wasting some tire life) and bringing the aircraft back to do the wheel change a few flight s later (additional down time and labor). In reality the additional cost of he later wheel change is going to be about an hours labor ($90) to jack the aircraft remove the wheel and re-fit it. Since this is 1/3 of the cost of the tire running the extra 12 landings you mentioned is COSTING money.

As for the old wives tale that an MR endorsement grounds the aircraft this is not strictly true. The purpose of an endorsement in part 2 of the MR is to notify the C of R holder or anyone likely to fly the aircraft that a defect exists in order for them to make an informed decision as to if the aircraft is serviceable. There is provision in the regs to make a specific statement to the effect that the aircraft is unsafe to fly in this part, but unless this statement is written it is up to the pilot. The above CAAP also provides provision to carry these defects forward beyond the 100 hourly so cosmetic defects flagged on the MR do not necessarily need to be repaired.

I also not on other threads the statement "defects from part two of the MR are transferred to part 1), this is incorrect. Part one of the MR is for recording known required maintenance which must be complied with before flight. Part 2 is for recording defects which occur between inspections. A brief reading of the notes below part two will show that defects entered in part two of the MR can be certified for directly in part two. Preferably with an entry in the log book as well.

[CHAIRMAN]

Bloggs has just completed a thorough check of all items listed in Schedule 5, to determine whether those items will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection due in 12 months or 110 TIS, whichever comes first, as well as a diligent review of all ADs applicable to an aircraft.
Hey Creamie, how come the 110hrs if the MR states that MR is valid for 1 year or 100 hrs from the last one?

[Creampuff]

CHAIRMAN: If the MR says 100 hours, then it is the earlier of 1 year and 100 hours TIS, not 110 hours TIS.

Progressive is correct. Unfortunately, that won’t prevent the folklore persisting. :(

FA said:Get real Creampuff;

We argued this ad nauseum when you "lost" my evidence.

Common sense goes out the window when nepotism is the order of the day.

We discussed the problem with schedule 4 and found that the aircraft was only serviceable at the time of inspection. There was no warranty of fitness expressed or implied about what would happen in the legal "forseability" over the course of the next 100 hours/ 12 months.

Your lot put to evidence my gripe was with the engineer, however, being mates of mates, and as I didn't order the MR, the onus of the engineers resonsibility was to the vendor who did the dodgy MR.

BTW: where are my fabric samples, the propeller bracket, the rusted fuselage tubes, the documetation that had the A/C immersed in salt water in NG, the rivets that fell out of the starboard wing, the fuel injectors, etc. etc. which I still have details on hard paperwork.

My Act of Grace payment was via Dept of Finance, (Slipper of all people), and CAsA have never admitted liability in any way shape or form.

Don't preach on this forum about leagalise.

Ring me. If I'm sober I may talk to you, or you can make an appointment via the PM system. Otherwise keep your pompous pious ridicule to yourself until we have at least 20 beers at the Wig and Pen where we will be on equal terms.

Fcuk me mate!Errrrm, I wish I knew what you are talking about. I’m happy for you to quote extracts from correspondence – it might help me to work it out. Did the events to which you refer happen during this millennium? My memory of last week's not that good, so anything before that ...

I’m guessing from your post that you bought a lemon, but that wasn’t your problem to sort out with the seller, and it wasn’t your problem to sort out with the engineers who signed the MRs. It was, of course, CASA’s problem. That would be the CASA which is accused of being too quick and heavy-handed in taking regulatory action against poor, scared LAMEs, and implored to instead ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with industry.

I note you say you were given an ‘act of grace’ payment. Act of grace payments are informally known as ‘shut up and f*ck off money’. You don’t appear to be performing your part of the bargain. :=

[T28D]

That supercilious posting has put Creampuff on my ignore list, waste of space.

[blackhand]

Creampuff,
My understanding is that the due maintenance refered to in Part1 is just that.
The oil change and pitot static leak check are scheduled maintenance falling due in the MR period.
The U/S Nav light seems would be an actual defect and as such I would not issue the MR with that on the part 2.
Best to flight test and have the pilot declare it after the MR is issued.
AFAIK
BH

[Creampuff]

But what if the aircraft was being released to Aerial Work, VFR?

This is why I keep quoting the rules and asking what rule would be broken in the various scenarios. After all, lots of people (not you) keep sprouting stuff about CASA being able to find a rule somewhere to ‘get you’.

The rule about issuing MRs says: (7) A maintenance release may be issued in respect of an aircraft only if:

(a) all maintenance in respect of the aircraft required to be carried out to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under these regulations has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or

(b) [not relevant – SFP flight].What requirement or condition imposed under the regulations requires the nav light bulb to be working for an Aerial Work, VFR aircraft?

Let’s assume the MR is issued with this endorsement in Part 2: “Right hand nav light bulb blown”.

Isn’t the aircraft is legal to fly day VFR Aerial Work until the next periodic?

The diligent PICs will realise that it’s not legal to fly night VFR, unless the endorsement is cleared or one of the exceptions applies. It does not seem to me to be any different from the PICs reading that an oil filter change is due in one hour – it either gets done now or you don’t go on your planned 3 hour flight.

You might say the maintenance org is releasing the aircraft for night and day VFR. In fact, the maintenance org is releasing the aircraft with a bunch of “ifs”.

This aircraft will be airworthy “if” its engine has an oil and oil filter change no later than…

This aircraft will be airworthy for night VFR “if” the nav light bulb is replaced…

[Ixixly]

Lets take a scenario that was previously discussed. You go to do a pre-flight, you do your usual pre-flight inspection, all seems fine, get the aircraft fuelled up, bring it on to line and notice now that the Left Fuel Gauge is overreading by about 5gallons.

So now what you have is a "DEFECT" as unfortunately there is no provision for what would be a minor or major defect, or perhaps a definition stating whether it affects the safety of the aircraft or not.

Now you're about to depart on a Day VFR Charter Flight, you've dipped the tanks, you know how much fuel is onboard, but this gauge is obviously out by about 5 gallons, you now have a defective item, as such you are obliged to note it in your MR, I'm not sure what the specific rule for this is, I'm sure someone more legal savvy could quote it, but lets face it, CASA Ramp you and decide to have a good look around this is something they can indeed pick up on as its a "Defect". Lets look at your typical GA Operator, with say a GA-8 Airvan (As I happen to have a POH for one sitting on my laptop), without an MEL, as this is an expensive exercise and they've never needed one before. THIS HAS NOW GROUNDED YOUR AIRCRAFT. As stated by you Creampuff, putting an item on the MR doesn't automatically ground it, but unfortunately due to 20.18:
10
Serviceability
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.

Now yes, a fancy MEL would solve this issue. I also happen to have an approved MEL sitting here for an Airvan and it states that it is fine to have one not working as long as you dip the tanks and can ascertain the fuel levels at each stop. Common sense stuff, basically replaced by a piece of paper.

This is what people are talking about, an item that does not directly affect the safety of the aircraft, that can be illegal in one aircraft but the EXACT same aircraft, performing the EXACT same operation, under the EXACT same conditions, sitting right next to it is free to go because of a piece of paper.

This is why there are snag lists all over GA, if used properly these can be very useful for noting stuff to be fixed or for other Pilots to keep an eye on without having to be noted on an MR automatically grounding the aircraft such as in the situation above. Now I know the usual argument is that "What qualifies you to determine what will affect safety or not? You're not a LAME" blah blah blah... fair point, but what is it about an MEL that automatically makes it safe? Yes, they have a piece of paper telling them some common sense stuff to help reduce the risks produced by the Defect but its mostly common sense stuff, an operator without an MEL operating with a defect like this can be just as safe as one operating without if they apply common sense, but that would not necessarily satisfy CASA.

This is where the problem arises IMHO, it comes up when an overzealous FOI or some such Ramps an aircraft and finds a Defect like this with a Pilot taking the proper precautions to reduce the risks. In a common sense world, this FOI would say "Ok, you're doing the right thing, your aircraft/operation are not unsafe, you may pass unmolested" but another FOI could quite as easily say "I don't care if its safe, its not legal and as such i'm grounding your aircraft and will have to investigate all your other aircraft to see if there is anything wrong with them" and of course be fully backed up by the law.

Fair enough, the operator took the risk yes, it was obvious that it was against the law, but its a pretty minor one, its why Police Officers have the power of Discretion, they can view a situation, lets say "Speeding", a common one, they may look at the situation and determine that "Yes, the driver was speeding, and over the limit by approximately 5km/hr, BUT, it was not an unsafe situation, the driver has no prior history in their 50years of driving and was extremely cooperative so I decided to let them off with a warning".

Now i'm sure CASA FOIs have the same powers of discretion, but the problem becomes whether they choose to use them or simply enforce the law no matter what. This is where the debate arises IMHO and is the reason behind PPP as LeadSled puts it (Positive Posterior Protection) and Snag Lists. People are not too keen on adding things to an MR that an FOI with a knowledge of any kind of tiny law that could be taken as a grey area when the lawyers get to arguing about whose fault it was. Sure in the end you'd probably be able to argue that the Aircraft was still perfectly safe in my scenario, but it would probably require a lot of time, effort and money.

In the case of the "- Left hand nav light bulb blown.", once again according to the GA8 POH, as my to hand example, it is perfectly legal as its not required under their equipment list.

[hung start]

CAO 20.18 is a good start .As for updating the GPS ,class A aircraft must have the update endorsed on the MR and the pilots must be trained as it is classed as a maintenance function , even a preflight insp. . My understanding ( and i cant remember the reference ) is you cant ISSUE an MR with open defects . The issue of an MR is to certify the a/c is serviceable for the validity of the MR ,scheduled maint due during the validity period is not an unserviceability as it is traceable in the maintenance system .

[Creampuff]

Now yes, a fancy MEL would solve this issue.Indeed it would.

And indeed it has:I also happen to have an approved MEL sitting here for an Airvan and it states that it is fine to have one not working as long as you dip the tanks and can ascertain the fuel levels at each stop. Common sense stuff, basically replaced by a piece of paper.The difference is that the MEL was approved by persons qualified and authorised to do it.

There are many, many posts on pprune to demonstrate that one pilot’s common sense is another’s anathema. That’s why I said, elsewhere, that 20.18 is there to protect fare paying passengers from pilots who fancy themselves as aeronautical and maintenance engineers.

UTR: I am happy to admit to being whoever you’d like to say I am. However, I would note that you are breaking pprune rules. :=

[Ixixly]

This is true Creampuff, i'll happily admit that it does serve a use, to protect the passengers and perhaps even the Pilots from themselves, but then I ask, what about if I call up my LAME and ask him about it...

As I mentioned in the Barrier post, i've had similar situations and was fortunate to have a CP who what a great mentor and kept a close eye on us green around the gill Pilots, making sure that we always reported things like this directly to him to receive advice and recommendations on appropriate courses of action to take and where and when to seek qualified advice, he was very much about making sure people realised the limitations of themselves and the machinery we operated and how to overcome those limitations in a safe manner.

My main issue is that things like MELs come very close to being an excuse for not using common sense and in some situations start to erode peoples ability to improve and use their common sense.

Do you not agree that in the situation I provided a good FOI would make sure that appropriate steps were being taken and then issue some kind of warning to have it fixed at the next suitable time and that there is also the distinct possbility of a bad FOI who instead decides to brandish the stick instead of the carrot? Because it is IMHO that this is where a lot of these problems arise, because people are afraid of the stick brandishing FOIs and the fact that there seems to be little opportunity to have these thugs overruled? In a timely manner that is, before your aircraft gets grounded for a few days for a non-issue.

Perhaps, and this is just a really out there idea, to prevent this apparent problem CASA should do some kind of campaign to make the creation of MELs dead easy and inexpensive for operators as a method of encouraging them to have them available and therefore eliminating any reason for Snag Lists?

Also...does anyone know what the approximate cost is to get an MEL these days? Say on a typical GA Single or Twin?

[Creampuff]

What about aircraft type in which an over-reading fuel gauge is a symptom of a potentially serious problem or results in different fuel management requirements?

The fundamental (though ostensibly reasonable and very common) mistake you make is to assume that if it’s safe to fly an Airvan with a fuel gauge that is over-reading (subject to compliance with the MEL conditions), it must be safe to fly any aircraft with an over-reading fuel gauge (subject to compliance with same conditions).

Not all fuel level measurement systems work in the same way. Not all failures produce the same symptoms.

When those MELs are developed, some big-brained engineers go through aircraft type-specific and system-specific analyses of failure modes, effects and criticality. For example, a capacitive fuel level probe may behave differently to a float/potentiometer system when there’s a failure.

You might find that some MELs require that a tank with a failed probe must have least a specified amount of fuel in it. Sure it’s full when you dip it, but you’re going to have to make sure you turn it off before it goes below the specified minimum. Would your ‘common sense’ have told you that? And so on…

Approximate cost? How long’s a piece of string? I’d call the operator of similar aircraft types who’s been through the process, and try to make very good friends with them… ;)

[Sunfish]

Cream puff, why then are there not generic MELs for plain vanilla models of common aircraft off the shelf and downloadable for free from CASA?

..or even modules for common systems that can be assembled into an MEL? For example fuel gauge systems with resistive senders and another one for capacitance probe systems?

Surely this must be possible without detailed engineering knowledge or it would not be possible to create a MEL at all.

But of course CASA is not required to behave as a reasonable person, let alone foster or promote aviation. This allows it to achieve its mission by simply preventing aviation.


The systems of regulation appear to me to be about extracting the maximum possible of cash from operators with the minimum risk to the bureaucrats concerned.

[Frank Arouet]

Creampuff;

Act of grace payments are informally known as ‘shut up and f*ck off money’. You don’t appear to be performing your part of the bargain.

CAsA has never admitted any iability in my matter, however I do have a letter of apology from the then Director Aviation Safety for their part in what The Deputy Prime Minister accused The CAsA Chairmam of destruction of my evidence.

The Act Of Grace payment was not paid by CAsA, but by The Department of Finance and NO CONFIDENTIALITY agreements were offered nor signed.

I think that was The Deputy Prime Ministers way of allowing the matter to be aired in public. After all it was summed up in a damning Commonwealth Ombudsmans report of CAsA, which I guess makes it a published document.

Had it not come to my attention who the CAsA party's involved in the Barrier matter were, I probably would not be having this rant. The fact that CAsA appear to have learn't nothing from their experience with me and the cronyism is still alive and malignent makes me sick in the stomach.

Of the prior mention duo attending to the Barrier matter, the one well know for being a drunk, once pinged an engineer over an inspection disc on a Cessna wing which was replaced with one removed from a wreck. Imagine that, no engineering order. I think it may have been a different colour that was the main cause for consternation.

I can't understand how you still believe CAsA prosecutions are worthy of legal explanation when we all know, or try to understand the rules, but are thwarted by vexacious attacks spurred on by individual agendas that are sending the industry broke.

I thought we'd brokered a peace of sorts, but expect more incoming if you continue to defend this lot and the way they do business.

[404 Titan]

Ixixly

I’m the first person in arguing in favour of “Common Sense” but in this case and from this debate “Common Sense” would appear to have a different meaning to different people. The rules must unfortunately cover the lowest common denominator.

I agree though Casa should make the approval of MEL’s a simpler process. They should also allow the approval of aircraft specific generic MEL’s by smaller operators to keep the costs down. Obviously the more aircraft of the same type an operator has the more cost effective it will be to introduce customised MEL’s derived from generic manufacturers Master MEL’s. If operators decide to use generic MEL’s though they must accept that they may be more limiting in their operation compared to using customised MEL’s.

The important thing is the documentation and procedures must be approved by the regulator.

[john_tullamarine]

why then are there not generic MELs for plain vanilla models of common aircraft off the shelf and downloadable for free from CASA?

Unless CASA has canned the work, you should find GMELs (generated MELs) available for a range of aircraft from CASA. The intention was to encourage their use to avoid the silly situation of numerous folk developing a bunch of similar documents at great inconvenience. Indeed, I was involved in the preparation of a couple of the CASA documents several years ago. They do take a fair bit of work and you have to buy them from CASA but, at that stage, the price reflected a pretty good value for the work which went into the documents.

Surely this must be possible without detailed engineering knowledge or it would not be possible to create a MEL at all.

Development of an MEL (other than a simple rework of the FAA MMEL) is an involved exercise and the work requires input from a number of disciplines - very definitely operations, engineering and maintenance.

But of course CASA is not required to behave as a reasonable person, let alone foster or promote aviation.

That may be your opinion - to which you are entitled. However, the GMELs and a range of other items, in my simple view of life, suggest that some of CASA's activities are very reasonable and do both foster and promote aviation.

Just had a looksee on the CASA website and it appears that they did can the GMEL program last year -

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Generated Minimum Equipment List (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90271)

I imagine Steve B will have been less than impressed with that decision after all the good work he put into ramrodding the program.

[Progressive]

As per my previous post the mentioned nav light is a non issue on private and RPT ops as it can be signed off as "restricted to "VFR" as per the CAAP I quoted earlier. Since this is only a blown globe and globe repair of globe is pilot allowed maintenance one could say a pilot could sign off the above defect and as per the CAAP and impose the VFR restriction to get the aircraft home from a remote base.

As for charter and RPT ops, this can only be done with a MEL as mentioned earlier. In effect this is recognition that pilot maintenance (and decision making re defects) is not allowed in these higher level ops. The MEL allows the same decision making to be transferred from the pilot to the operator via a documented trail.

Development of an MEL is not a particularly arduous or expensive task and allows for flexibility and compliance in making these decisions. Why would you NOT have one for your charter aircraft? and RPT aircraft are required to have one!

For those who are looking for standardized lists for development of MEL's most aircraft manufacturers develop Master Minimum Equipment Lists for all modern types and selected legacy types. These are available from the manufacturer (they have a part number and are updated) or via the FAA, CAA or sometimes CASA. The MMEL is a bare minimum list of required components and an MEL must never be less than this list.

An example cessna 441 MMEL can be found here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ce425_rev0_all_corrected.pdf

All FAA MMEL's can be found here:
Flight Standards Information System (FSIMS) (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=MMEL)

CASA advice on using the MMEL to develop an MEL for your ops:
CAAP 37-1(4)

[john_tullamarine]

Further to Progressive's post,


FAA MMELs (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=MMEL)


Development of an MEL is not a particularly arduous or expensive task

Unless you intend to do little more than modify the MMEL, I have to disagree. An MEL from scratch involves a LOT of research into the particular Type/Model/tail


The MMEL is a bare minimum list of required components and an MEL must never be less than this list.

Not quite the case.

The MMEL generally will contain those items for which the OEM considers permissions for defective operation may be useful. The MEL should be based, as a starting point, on the MMEL.

There is no reason why you can't throw out heaps of stuff from the FAA source document -

(a) not applicable to your tail(s) due build or mod status

(b) you don't want to avail your operation of that permission for some reason

Similarly, you can add items to your MEL but you have to justify their inclusion and content to your preferred Delegate when it comes to getting a tick in the box for the final document

[LeadSled]

Folklore, Leaddie.
It's depressing that ostensibly intelligent people believe it and spread it. :ugh:
So Leaddie, how do all those scared LAMEs protect themselves against the risk of engine failures after the MR has been issued? By your logic, 2.7 results in the LAME being responsible for an engine that fails 85 hours later, because everyone forgets to check and top up the oil during that period.

Creamie,
I wish it were folklore, that there are different interpretations of para.2.7 is clear, but what is clear to me is that a very narrow interpretation of the meaning is common, including amongst some AWIs, if you don't want to accept that, that is your business --- I can only speak from my personal knowledge and experience --- it is not a matter of "my logic", para: 2.7 is a fact, and I have said on many an occasion, para: 2.7 is a serious issue for LAMEs, not limited to its contribution to Hangar Keepers Liability Insurance.

As to an engine failure sometime during the period of an MR,
my memory tells me there has been such a case. No, I can't give you a case number, but it went something roughly like:

1) LAME fitted a whole new cylinder kit to an aircraft.
2) The cylinder kit had all the necessary paperwork from the CASA approved overhauler.
3) After some hours of operation, that cylinder failed, a dropped valve. The aircraft landed safely with no further damage.
4) LAME who fitted the cylinder severely was sanctioned by CASA, who were of the view that, as the LAME who signed the aircraft out, he was responsible for the serviceability of the overhauled cylinder, even though he only fitted it and released the aircraft to service, he did not overhaul the cylinder.
5) The reason for the dropped valve was the wrong valve spring retainer collets were fitted to one valve.

Now, I don't really expect you to accept this, but some posters or lurkers on these pages might even remember the case, and the individual LAME. The AWIs involved will certainly remember.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

..5) The reason for the dropped valve was the wrong valve spring retainer collets were fitted to one valve. Must have been another reason, as this would be viewed as responsibility of the OH facility. The LAME would fit the rocker gear and pushrods, amongst other bits, but not the valves and collets.

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

Unless you are the LAMEs or the AWIs the subject of the stories you tell, you are not speaking from your ‘personal knowledge and experience’. You are just telling us something that you say someone told you or you think you read somewhere. (It went ‘roughly like this’, did it? Roughly? ‘Some posters or lurkers on these pages might even remember the case’, might they? Or not, or perhaps differently?

And by the way, 2.7 has nothing to do with responsibility for the serviceability of a new cylinder kit fitted to an aircraft except, perhaps, in folklore. An inspection in accordance with 2.7 may be one of the processes that lead to the discovery of a cylinder that must be replaced. What must happen next has nothing to do with 2.7 …)

Of course 2.7 is a ‘serious issue for LAMEs’. And they charge – as they should - serious money for carrying out the required inspection “to determine whether the thing being inspected will remain airworthy until the next periodic inspection”. What possible value for maintenance money or safety benefit is there for any other kind of inspection in the circumstances? “Here are the keys mate: I reckon she should last at least to the end of the taxiway or 5 minutes, whichever comes first. Pay my bill before you jump in though…”

I am struck by the irony of this being discussed in a thread in which FA brings up the death trap he purchased. It had a nice fresh MR. It made it out of the hangar and on to the flight line. Obviously the maintenance org should bear no responsibility for what happened about 50 minutes later: “I poked my finger through the fabric in three places. It was rotten. It was just a flying death trap. It was a pile of junk. And I grabbed a knife and cut the fabric underneath the rudder to take the fabric off, and the whole bottom half of the rudder fell off in a pool of rusty water.”

An interpretation of 2.7 to the effect that the LAME is responsible for everything that happens until the next periodic inspection is not ‘narrow’. It’s ‘wrong’. 2.7 means what it says: conduct a thorough check to determine whether the thing being inspected will remain airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Having done that, the LAME is then responsible for doing something about the things s/he determines won’t be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. That has to be done in accordance with rules to which 2.7 is irrelevant.

I’d be interested if you could nominate (by PM) the name of any LAME who considers s/he is responsible for an engine failure 85 hours post MR-issue, if, for example, no one checked or topped up the oil in that period and there’s little-to-no oil left in the engine, or someone conducted unauthorised maintenance on the throttle or mixture cable connections to the FCU and one of those cables disconnected from the FCU.

I have little doubt that those lovely insurance companies who write hangarkeeper’s policies are always finding some scary new risk to justify increasing premiums. (Does the spiel go something like this? “Unfortunately, we’ve got to up the premium. Did you hear about Bloggs who apparently got nailed for some unapproved maintenance carried out after the aircraft left the hangar? Leaddie will tell you about it. We weren’t the insurer, but obviously we are now covering more risk. Bloody lawyers and judges! At least we’re on your side [and making record profits] though.”)

Frank

…sigh…

....bigger sigh....

Yes, I’m a big supporter of ‘cronyism’, ‘CAsA prosecutions’ and ‘vexacious attacks spurred on by individual agendas that are sending the industry broke’.

That’s me to a ‘t’.

You know what’s such a crying shame about that whole god-awful M4 mess, Frank? If you’d just organised a pre-purchase inspection and report, or even looked at the aircraft yourself first, none of it would have happened.

Doesn’t excuse CASA, but jeez mate…

[Frank Arouet]

Creampuff old mate;

But I did organise a pre purchase inspection which the vendor agreed to pay for, such was his enthusiasm to cement the deal. It was my engineer who found all the faults post sale. I did inspect the aircraft which cosmetically looked OK. But I'm not an engineer or a Lawyer, so what would I know?

Problem was, legally the engineer who did the pre purchase inspection had a duty of care to the bloke who paid for it, not the poor sod who believed a fresh MR was worth the paper it was written on.

Enter CAsA.

Enter Creampuff.

Even car dealers are required to provide a RWC for a sale to proceed.

Facts like blokes being mates of mates who used to work together in Kowloon had sod all to do with it. Did it?

If it wasn't cronyism, where is my "lost evidence"?

Why did John Anderson accuse CAsA of destroying my evidence?

Why did The Commonwealth Ombudsman write a damning report of CAsA?

Why did the Director write me a letter of apology?

Why did The Federal Parliamentary Secretary pay me an Act of Grace Payment?

Why wasn't I asked to sign a confidentiality agreement?

Why?

The following may be out of text, but you will recall who said it. Enjoy.

Further, from the fact of the deficiencies and breaches outlined above it would appear that the company may not be a fit and proper organisation to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of the holder of a Certificate of Approval in that a person or company holding such a Certificate should reasonably be, and have been, expected to identify and remedy the defects, and to comply with the requirements breached. The seriousness of the matter is aggravated by the number of deficiencies.

[Creampuff]

I did inspect the aircraft which cosmetically looked OK. But I'm not an engineer or a Lawyer, so what would I know?In the context of my question and your answer, you seem to be suggesting that:

- you inspected the aircraft before you purchased it; and

- at that point it looked to you to be “OK”.MARK WILLACY: You'd think buying an aircraft sight unseen wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. But what convinced [PURCHASER’S NAME] was that the Mall M4 up for sale had what's called a fresh maintenance release. In other words, a statutory piece of paper which certifies the plane has undergone an inspection after 100 hours of flying. The Mall's release was only 50 minutes old, so [PURCHASER’S NAME] thought it must have been in top shape.

But after the plane was delivered to [PURCHASER’S NAME] at Brisbane's Archerfield Airport he could see that wasn't the case, so he took it straight to [LAME’s NAME] aircraft maintenance shop at a nearby hangar. [NAMED LAME] was blunt in his assessment.

[NAMED LAME]: I poked my finger through the fabric in three places. It was rotten. It was just a flying death trap. It was a pile of junk. And I grabbed a knife and cut the fabric underneath the rudder to take the fabric off, and the whole bottom half of the rudder fell off in a pool of rusty water.

So you inspected the aircraft [B]before you purchased and everything ‘looked OK’, but after you purchased the aircraft you looked at it and you saw some differences that caused concern, even though you are not an engineer or a Lawyer.

What were the differences between what you saw at your pre-purchase inspection compared with your post-purchase inspection?

I say again: Doesn’t excuse CASA, but jeez mate…

[Frank Arouet]

Corrections to your quoted assumption;

So THE VENDORS ENGINEER inspected the aircraft before you purchased and ISSUED A MR WHICH YOU BELIEVED WAS A STATEMENT OF ITS AIRWORTHINESS’, but after you purchased the aircraft YOUR ENGINEER looked at it and you saw some differences that caused ALARM,

It caused so much alarm that the local CAsA engineer grounded the aircraft and seized the logbooks. Indeed, was heard taking bets on how far I would have gone before I killed myself.

I was aware of certain things that needed attention, (like a new paint job, an avionics upgrade and some upholstry work), but I assume you are not going to lump this with dustcaps being a no go defect?

Mark Willacy on ABC AM show did a good job in getting most of it right, unike the Journalists we are burdened with today who get nothing right.

It may interest you to know how the aircraft came to have 50 minutes flown off a brand new MR;

My uneventful test flight flown by the vendor accounted for probably 30 minutes and 20 minutes would be the delivery time to my engineer who was going to address my cosmetic issues.

The vendors engineer received counselling.

Somewhat different to the text I quoted written by the senior CAsA manager GA of the day regarding another company..

Further, from the fact of the deficiencies and breaches outlined above it would appear that the company may not be a fit and proper organisation to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of the holder of a Certificate of Approval in that a person or company holding such a Certificate should reasonably be, and have been, expected to identify and remedy the defects, and to comply with the requirements breached. The seriousness of the matter is aggravated by the number of deficiencies.

[T28D]

Frank wasn't Creamie a CASA functionary at that time, in alegal sense ?????

[Creampuff]

You are the only person of whom I am aware who’s purchased an aircraft without a pre-purchase inspection and report by YOUR OWN ENGINEER. If you’d done that, none of the ensuing mess would have happened.

You were duped by the vendor. No shame in that: we all get sucked in now and then.

Once the lemon you purchased was grounded, it no longer constituted a risk to air safety.

The busy people who had actual risks to air safety to deal with then stuffed up the incredibly important work of finding out why your lemon was a lemon with an MR. Not an RPT aircraft; not a charter aircraft; but a private aircraft with only four seats. Lots of letters and inquiries, tough questions in Senate Estimates and (justified) criticism from the Ombudsman about the botched CASA investigation, and the taxpayer writes you a cheque!

Now let’s think about that. CASA didn’t cause you buy a lemon. A shonky vendor did. CASA couldn’t then ‘unmake’ the contract of sale or force the vendor to give money back to you. If CASA had suspended or cancelled the CAR 30 approval and engineer’s licence, you still wouldn’t have got your money back.

So nothing CASA did or didn’t do, diligently, negligently, corruptly or otherwise, was going to magic your hard-earned back into your pocket.

Yet the taxpayer wrote you a cheque.

For the record, in my view the vendor’s engineer should be in gaol. But that isn’t (and wasn’t) my call. Further, you have NFI as to what regulatory action was ultimately taken against the vendor’s engineer. Embellished second and third hand hearsay is not fact.

[blackhand]

Creampuff and Frank
Frank isn't the only person to confuse the "vendors" description of the aircraft with a pre purchase inspection.
I have been on the other side as the certifying LAME on the 100 hour inspection of an aircraft being sold.
Legal action was threatened by the purchaser for defects subsequently found, this did not eventuate as the defects would have only been discovered on a more major inspection or dissassembly of the wings and fuel system.

Here's a thought, If you had prima facie evidence that the mob in SE Queensland and the LAME had committed fraud why wasn't civil action pursued?

Edit: to prevent thread drift
What exactly does the Maintenance Release attest to?

[Frank Arouet]

If CASA had suspended or cancelled the CAR 30 approval and engineer’s licence, you still wouldn’t have got your money back

True, but it would have prevented that organisation from signing out any more shonky MR's since about 1997 to of recent, when somebody did contract them to do a MR inspection and it turned out to be shonky enough to put them out of business.

Lets see, 1997 to about 2012 (and I'm being generous with the dates),= 15 friggen years.

Fifteen years! All because they were a CAsA "compliant" friendly enterprise with mates in high places in Canberra.

Don't you think a new audit should be done to see how many more "lemons" are still flying. How incompetent is that given the quote put out by that most senior of GA managers in CAsA about another organisation but obviously not from Kowloon.

Further, you have NFI as to what regulatory action was ultimately taken against the vendor’s engineer.

I do. I have it all in writing from the second highest authority in the land.

If this is incorrect, someone has mislead Parliament.

Give this away mate before I cross you off my Christmas list.

What exactly does the Maintenance Release attest to?

A bloody good question. But I know an aeroplane won't fly without one.

You should be able to answer that yourself blackie.:suspect:

[blackhand]

You should be able to answer that yourself blackie.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif
Others seem to have a different interpretation of what the Release to Service means to my understanding, so am interested.

[Creampuff]

I agree with you Frank, if your understanding of the facts is complete and accurate. Can I ask, what is the date of the corro from the Deputy PM and does it say that the regulatory action was, as at the date of the corro, completed? I only ask that because obviously anything the corro says about regulatory action against the vendor’s engineer is only accurate at that point. But if, as you say, the same person has been allowed by CASA to continue to issue MRs in respect of ‘flying death traps’ for 15 years (Note Mods: I mentioned MRs, the subject of this thread…), protected by mates in CASA, that’s corruption. (You will recall that I said my view is the vendor’s engineer should be in gaol. If mates in CASA have been protecting him, my view is they should be there too.)

Would appreciate being PM’d the names of the organisation/engineer/CASA mates to which you refer. A list of names, and nothing more (no subject line or commentary) (this is to protect you), please.

[Frank Arouet]

You may appreciate it, but I know when someone is attempting to "snow me".

You may take on board that the Commonwealth Ombudsman's recommendations were acted upon and remedial action was taken subsequent to that investigation and prior to an invitation by the Chairman of the CAsA Board to work with CAsA safety branch to write a guide to purchasing a light aircraft. (Hint: Google is your friend).

The sum of which was that I was expected to work for nothing, no office, no car, no travel.

The guide was produced, rewritten and re-Authored and published. It was a rewrite of the then schedule 4. I guess it was the genesis of schedule 5, but I won't hold my hand up for that one.

The same guide was given to AOPA and I believe it has also gone missing.

The vendors engineer was counselled.

The vendors engineers EMPLOYER stayed in business for another 15 years.

You know the name of the company, do a search like I paid my Lawyer to do and tell me there was no cronyism with the CAsA high powers of the time. Tell everybody from public documents who was the Aust Manager GA at CAsA at the time.

Then tell me who should be in Gaol /Jail depending on your spell checker.

Oh! and see if you can find my evidence.

[blackhand]

blackhand, first of all you'll have to define 'damage'.
Which one of those 50 shades of grey I referred to? I was asking you if it's #1 or #25 or #49 or whichever one, because we mere mortals don't know until after casa has decided whether to take enforcement action or not.
If it's #1, then in this country, aviation is doomed. Somewhere around #22 would be fair, don't you think? :rolleyes:UV sun damage is fairly obvious, and does indeed affect the strength of the fabric.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

31 posts consecutively about Frank's lemon.

Know I have been guilty, so feel qualified to say,
ENOUGH OF THE THREAD DRIFT

Now to get things back on track,

The question was raised as to why a 110 hr MR exists, and one of the answers is that under a system of maintenance (if the aircraft is on one it will be listed on the MR as the "Fixit or Farkit Engineering System of Maintenance" or "CASA Schedule 5 SOM") major items (such as engine 100 hrly inspections, incl. ignition timing, filter cleaning etc) may be staggered so that the aircraft spends shorter amounts of time in the hanger more frequently. If the aircraft spends two three day periods out of the air in an MR period, it may be less inconvenient than a single six day period. A Chieftain may have engine 1 done at 55 hrs and engine 2 done at the end of the MR (110 hrs).

Additional maintenance requirements may also be imposed. I know of one that required alternator bearing changes to be conducted at 500 hr periods on a Baron SOM. This was to reduce the risk of a alternator bearing failure that could have contaminated the engine (a problem with the direct drive alternator mounting used on Continental 6's).

Beware when using a system of maintenance that gives a 10% extension (hence the presence of 110 or even 220 hr MRs), the 10% extension does not apply to AD time periods (ie. a 100 hour inspection period does not extend to +\-10%).:ok:

[LeadSled]

Unless you are the LAMEs or the AWIs the subject of the stories you tell, you are not speaking from your ‘personal knowledge and experience’.

Creamie,
Most of what you say, whether I agree with it or not, usually has a logical basis.
On the other hand, the above, with all due respect, is in my opinion utter rubbish.

Are you trying to tell me that when a member of a national organisation approaches an officer of said organisation for help in representation to CASA that I, as that officer, cannot speak from "personal knowledge and experience" of each case, with which I have dealt ??

When I work with some of our local law firms in case preparation ?

I must have imagined the number of informal conferences, or AAT hearings I have sat through, or those whom helped I helped prepare.

Any of the example I use here have come from those sources, they are far from being second or third hand cases from the annals of the Barroom Barristers Fraternal.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

MIHC: All of the posts about FA’s circumstances were about the fact that he relied on an MR purportedly issued after the inspection required by Schedule 5, for an aircraft that had multiple and serious defects. In what bizarro world is a discussion about those circumstances not relevant to a thread called “Defects, Maintenance Releases and Schedule 5”?

Frank: I’m genuinely sad that you’re that paranoid.

Leaddie: You are of course free to speak in whatever capacity and through whatever orifice/s you like. But when you make assertions about how CASA and insurance companies and other people have interpreted para 2.7 of Schedule 5, I’d prefer quotes.

It’s easy and you don’t have to name anyone!

You just need to quote what they said. Then we don’t have to rely on your second-hand, embellished interpretation of what you consider someone else meant to say.

For example, when you’ve been to one of those extraordinarily important hearings and you’ve been consulted on an issue in which your vast experience qualifies you to opine, it would be better if you said in these threads: “The judge then said to me: ‘Thank you Mr [Leaddie]'. As soon as the judge has made her decision, I’ll post a link to the decision on PPRuNe”.

If someone in AMROBA tells you something, all you need to say is “Someone is AMROBA told me that…..”.

When an AWI says something, all you need to say is that “On x date and y time, AWI Bloggs said that no aircraft may ever operate with an open defect in an MR.”

It’s easy!

[Frank Arouet]

Frank: I’m genuinely sad that you’re that paranoid.

No, you are not!

And it was schedule 4. Sorry for that thread drift. Missed by "that much".

[Sarcs]

Perhaps all will be revealed when Fort Fumble gets off it's collective and answers certain questions asked by Senator Nash at the Supp Estimates 16/10/12, which by the way was due to be answered by 07/12/12:
149 CASA 03 NASH Aviation

Maintenance

1. Can the department clarify whether the new regulations, and
specially those contained in CASA Part 21, Subpart M,
applies to the General Aviation industry?
2. Did the department adequately consult with all key
stakeholders, including the AMROBA (Aviation
Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association), as
to the scope of these changes and to which sectors of the
industry they will apply before enacting the changes?
3. If so, can the department explain why there is so much
confusion surrounding the impact of these new regulations?
4. Has the department sought to clarify, beyond the statement
released by the Director of Aviation Safety, the effect of the
new regulations on the industry since its implementation?
5. How advanced is the department in its steps to introduce new
regulations relating to maintenance standards for the rest of
the industry if the General Aviation industry is not covered
by the changes recently implemented?
In context of this thread I would of thought these are very relevant questions...but I'm only a knuckle dragger totally oblivious and ignorant to the black art of the blackhanders (sorry blackie no pun intended and I didn't mean to troll your thread)!:E

By the way there is many other QONs very deserving of answers prior to ADD Estimates 12/02/2013, take a look at the index pdf:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1213/infra/index.htm)

[Jabawocky]

Here is an observation for you sarcs.

The rate at which they are pumping out crap, not well researched, nor well consulted, despite the drafts etc bla bla bla.........it seems that bonuses and KPI'S might be an influence :hmm:

Just wondering.....with no proof at all. But I am stunned at the things I have seen of late. :confused: :ugh: :eek:

[T28D]

JABA Why Creamie et at set up the system HOLA

[Jabawocky]

Don't think it was creamie .....but you ignore him now, so not to worry:ok:

[Sarcs]

Careful Jaba you may find yourself branded and quartered within the uncouth.."vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics;" or god forbid they smear your good name as someone who expouses "hearsay and tautological rubbish"!:ok:

Sorry thread drift...:= now back to the thread:E

[Jack Ranga]

M.I.H.C.

The thread drift is more interesting (and important). Every friggin' thread drifts, so what?

Carry on chaps.....

[Jack Ranga]

That goes for you too sarcs :E

[rutan around]

In my lifetime some churches still conducted services in Latin. "Populus sunt omes obstupescas. Ecclesia rapio vestri pecunia et vendere haedos tuos" chants the priest. "Amen" chants the pious congregation.
Today in aviation it's exactly the same. The rules are written in what for all intents and purposes is a foreign language. Whilst ever the rules are written in the convoluted language of lawyers and NOT the language of the users, confusion will reign. We have to ask ourselves if this is deliberate. If it is, who benefits and who loses?
While Creamy and Trent are busy chanting "Lex est Lex" some of you may have translated the Latin above, including the literal meaning of 'Amen'. I'm sure you'll all agree that it's a lot of stuffing about for a very simple message. Similarly with CASA, it's bloody near impossible to translate their rules but you're in deep doggy-do if you transgress. Amen. RA. :ugh:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Regulations = 50 shades of grey.

[rutan around]

Biscuit, Don't forget that ONLY the high priests of CASA can decide which shade of grey applies to you for verily they say unto you "Only we can interpret the long dead language called Legalize". I think we're whipped to 50 shades of black and blue. :{
Cheers RA
Frank, were you shafted by 50 shades of Cathay?

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
I will continue to express myself as I have done, and leave it up to individual readers to read, and if they wish, consider and accept or reject what I have to say.
There is, apparently, no shortage of readers, who understand my point. For those who will always disagree with me, no amount of detail will convince them otherwise.

Rutan around,
We have to ask ourselves if this is deliberate.
To quote a former senior lawyer in CASA, to a group of people that included me:

"Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

The retort, from the then President of AIPA, is well known.

Another statement from a CASA person rather illustrates a certain bias by SOME in CASA:

"Pilots are just criminals who haven't been caught yet"

And another, from a current CASA quite senior employee:

"There should only be two kinds of aviation in Australia, airlines and military"

And finally from a quite senior airworthiness person in CASA:

"My job is to ground aircraft"

And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

The guide was produced, rewritten and re-Authored and published. It was a rewrite of the then schedule 4. I guess it was the genesis of schedule 5, but I won't hold my hand up for that one.Errrmm, either you are very confused or I’ve misread what you’re suggesting Frank. :confused:

Schedule 5 has been the CASA Maintenance Schedule in almost exactly the same terms since it was added to the regs in 1991. The only changes since 1991 relate to things like the change in name from “CAA” to “CASA”.

A copy of the 1991 legislation including the original Schedule 5 is here: Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F1997B00960)

Compare it with today’s version: Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00622/Html/Volume_4)

No substantial differences.

When it existed, Schedule 4 dealt with dangerous goods training.

(Slight thread drift: A copy of the original 1988 CARs is here: Civil Aviation Regulations (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F1997B00935) 155 pages! Count them: 155. And what has the ‘simplification’ process produced?)

You need an office, car and travel expenses to produce a guide to purchasing a light aircraft?

I’ll whip one up for you, free, in 10 minutes!

1. Find a LAME who represents him/herself as having expertise in the maintenance of the type of aircraft you are considering purchasing.

2. Confirm the bona fides of that LAME – contact owners of the same/similar aircraft maintained by the LAME; contact type-specific clubs or representative organisations and speak to technical experts known to the club/entity.

3. If satisfied with the bona fides of the LAME, pay him/her to:

a. Review the aircraft/engine/propeller logbooks, including an audit of the aircraft’s compliance with applicable ADs

b. Conduct an inspection of the aircraft in accordance with Schedule 5

c. Provide a report of:
i. The findings of the logbook review and AD audit
ii. The findings of the inspection against Schedule 5
iii. The scheduled maintenance that will arise in the next two years, and approximate cost
iv. The components that may need to be replaced after two years (e.g. seatbelts…) and approximate cost
v. Any type-specific airworthiness and maintenance issues, and how those issues have affected and are likely to affect the aircraft inspected.

4. Rely on that report in deciding whether or not to purchase the aircraft.

5. In the event that you purchase and the report failed to mention something it should have mentioned, and you incur costs to deal with the issue, pursue a claim against the person who provided the report.

Notes:

[As BH has previously noted:] A Schedule 5 inspection is not a ‘guarantee of pristine condition’. A proper inspection against Schedule 5 may not cover some components, and is conducted only for the purpose of determining whether the things inspected will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Matters outside the scope of the required inspection are your risk.

Some future expenses, like complying with new ADs arising from e.g. fuel contamination, can never be foreseen and are your risk.

Disputes about the condition of the aircraft with the aircraft seller and person who gives you a report are your problem. CASA is not the Fair Trading Department or ACCC.

If the person who provides you a report is worth $1 and has no insurance to respond to liability to you, the report isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

If an aircraft deal appears too good to be true, it almost certainly isn’t true.

The Civil Aviation rules do not determine or affect legal title to an aircraft. Appearing as ‘owner’ on the register does not make it so. You need to check that the person selling the aircraft actually owns it. If you purchase a stolen aircraft or otherwise hand over money to someone who doesn’t own the aircraft, you are likely to lose the aircraft and your money.Leaddie: Indeed. :ok:

[Sunfish]

.....and don't forget that wonderful throw away line: "the law, rules and regulations mean what they say".

For example, ask CASA what the word"generally" means.

[Frank Arouet]

Apologies Creampuff and others. Time has taken it's toll and you are correct about schedule 5.

The guide was a re write of schedule 5 and as I said was re Authored, severely edited and published in "the CAsA "blurb.

You need an office, car and travel expenses to produce a guide to purchasing a light aircraft?

I was offered to work in CAsA Safety Promotions Branch with MS by Dr Paul Scully-Power. Still have the letter. When I rang up to ask when, where do I start, the question remained unanswered to this date.

The one cryptic hint I had about the seriousness of the offer came from DA in The Directors office.

[rutan around]

Creamie

You just listed numerous traps for young players when considering the purchase of an aircraft. I'm sure Frank knew about and accepted the risk that some of the problems you listed might be discovered as time went on.

What he didn't know was that a stupid LAME with an over optimistic trust in the decency of his murderous friends, would give them a blank Maintenance Release.

He didn't know that those two would-be murderers would sign out as airworthy a death trap.

He didn't know that the upper echelons of CASA would protect their little mate.

He didn't know that Casa would be so careless with vital physical evidence that they "lost" it thus preventing the matter being pursued through other courts. Perhaps this evidence is still at Fort Fumble under a big box of tyre photos showing missing dust caps.

You said in an earlier post that it wouldn't have helped Frank if the LAME had been convicted. I beg to differ. Armed with a CASA conviction it would have been a piece of piss to pursue for civil damages, and the two criminals would have had to face court. Without it much more difficult and $$$$$$$$.

If all your finger waving advice about not relying on a current maintenance release for airworthiness is true, does that mean that every time I hire an aircraft for a half hour blatt I must first get my own LAME to inspect it? :ugh: RA

[Creampuff]

Rutan: If you or anyone else reckons there are people in CASA who protected an incompetent or criminal LAME, name them.

Name them.

If you haven’t got the guts to put up and prove it, learn to live with wallowing in this pointless quagmire until you go to your grave.

Frank: understood. :ok:

Leaddie said:And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places.Errrrrm, why on earth wouldn’t you give those details?

If what you say is true, what’s the risk to you?

If someone made those statements, they are responsible for having made them.

If someone in CASA said “My job is to ground aircraft”, how on earth can they legitimately complain if they are identified and quoted? (And BTW, anyone who is a delegate of the power to suspend CsofA has a legal duty to ground aircraft when the criteria for the exercise of that power exist. It is, indeed, their ‘job’.)

Let me demonstrate why this is important, with a hypothetical.

At an Australia AOPA meeting at which I was present I overhead a very senior AOPA Director, who still has a high profile in GA, say:

Don’t worry, most of the members are complete fools and will do whatever I scare them into doing.

Did I hear that correctly? Maybe not. Perhaps it was said in jest.

Perhaps I just made it up.

But it’s not a very nice thing to say, if it was said.

On the other hand, it’s not appropriate that a small number of identifiable individuals have this unanswerable rumour circulating, if it’s inaccurate.

Let’s alter the hypothetical circumstances:

At an Australia AOPA meeting at which I was present at Merimbula NSW on 15 October 1998, I overhead an AOPA Director named Bill Hamilpike say:

Don’t worry, most of the members are complete fools and will do whatever I scare them into doing.

Having provided the details, people are now in a position to, for example:
- Work out that there was no AOPA Director named “Bill Hamilpike”
- Work out that there was no AOPA meeting at Merimbula on 15 October 1998.
- Work out that at the actual meeting at Merimbula on [specify correct date] a person named Bill Johnson actually said: “Don’t worry, most of our members can use basic tools and do basic repairs and record what they are doing.” This was in the context of a discussion with a CASA Safety Adviser about pilot approved maintenance. There is a video recording of the event.

People with names close to ‘Bill Hamilpike’ who were AOPA directors around that time could demand an apology for my suggestion that one of them had said something not very nice. I would (and do immediately and hypothetically) give a groveling apology to them, because I evidently misheard what was said and by whom.

That’s an important outcome, because a whole bunch of people could (hypothetically) have been labouring under misconceptions caused by inaccurate and misleading rumours.

[Frank Arouet]

rutan around;

Clever chap. Not being a student of Latin it has taken some time to understand the gist of your post. I hope I'm right.

Populus sunt omnes obstupescas. Ecclesia rapio vestri pecunia et vendere haedos tuos

Means

You people are all stupid . The church will steal your money and sell your kids



Amen is ( I think) Hebrew and means “so be it “

May I also add for brevity of purpose to describe the current thoughts at fort fumble;

Taurus excreta conundrum cerebellum.

Everyone should be able to work that one out.

[Frank Arouet]

Creampuff;

Name them

If anybody is interested thay can PM me and I will give a reference to the Commonwealth Ombudsmans report which is on the public record. rutan around already has it as do you.

Perhaps you can publish a link? This will put a stop to the constant Lawyer taunts to self imolate in a Court.

Of course this will "out me" on this forum, so you will have to live with that if somebody with a grudge on this Planet doesn't know who I am already.

An alternative is referenced in "The Phelan Papers Vol 1" which I understand is there for downloading.

You understand but many don't, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has no powers to investigate non government entities, so his terms of reference stop "in shop" so to speak. However he has the right to and has made reference to all parties involved.

To maintain the thread topic, I say.

A MAINTENANCE RELEASE IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON, unless we have a REGULATOR PREPARED TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY prosecute those who do not follow the inspection regime to the letter of the law.

[Up-into-the-air]

Hear Hear Hear FA

Got an answer Creamie

[T28D]

Frank, Classic Reply well done

[rutan around]

There you go Creamie. All the names you want. Publish away. You should be pretty safe over there in Salt Lake City you big brave boy .
This quagmire you refer to was created by certain crooks in CASA (You know who they are but you chose to do nothing) Until a government of one stripe or another gets off it's bloated arse and has a top to bottom inquiry into CASA this toxic authority will blunder on ruining people's lives and businesses.
It's no different to the inexcusable delay that occurred before finally holding the current inquiry into institution sexual abuse of children. How many children's lives were ruined while governments studiously ignored ruined adults "wallowing in their useless quagmire"
What will it take to bring on an inquiry? A totally disgruntled victim who right now can't decide whether to take out Fort Fumble or a bunch of politicians? There has to be a better way before someone snaps.
Come on Creamie you were in there. You could be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Or are quite happy to leave casa crooks go unpunished no matter how much they harm they caused casa and aviation? RA

[Up-into-the-air]

Well Creamie

You have been taunting others to name names.

This is your big chance.

Name them now.

[Creampuff]

Gosh, I’m really on the spot now. Caps and bold and large font.

I do not have a copy of the Ombudsman’s Report to which Frank refers, and I’ve never read it. Nor do I intend wasting my time reading it.

Apparently, from the information posted by Frank and available on the ABC website, the Ombudsman did an investigation and issued a report critical of CASA’s investigation. Frank subsequently got a cheque from the taxpayer.

Apparently, from the allegations made by Frank et al in this thread, the Ombudsman’s investigation did not identify the ‘crooks’ in CASA who are, apparently, still there.

And that’s my problem?

No.

If the allegations you’ve made are true, and this has been going on for around a decade and a half, you evidently don’t have the critical mass of brains, guts and resources necessary to fix the problem.

Welcome to the real world and enjoy wallowing in self-pity.A MAINTENANCE RELEASE IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON, unless we have a REGULATOR PREPARED TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY prosecute those who do not follow the inspection regime to the letter of the law.For the record, I agree (although what you meant to say was the regulator should press for prosecution, by the CDPP, in accordance with the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, as well as take timely, effective and appropriate administrative action. I’d also add that an MR is not worth the paper it’s printed on if people don’t do proper daily inspections or record defects as required by law.)

I realise I speak in impenetrably complex language, so I’ll try to make my point clear, in pprune speak and font.

I AGREE.

YOU ARE CORRECT.

THAT’S WHAT THE REGULATOR’S JOB IS.

THAT’S WHAT THE REGULATOR IS PAID TO DO.

Anyone who worked for the regulator and agreed with this view would probably become very frustrated, and leave the regulator very quickly, as soon as it became apparent that the regulator did not have the corporate competence and integrity to regulate properly.

Such a person would also probably be surprised – and eventually bemused – by suggestions that s/he was not only responsible for decisions and activities over which s/he had no direct or indirect control, but also responsible for the composition of the regulator, a decade and a half or so after leaving.

Finally – and this only a guess – such a person would probably eventually grow very tired of being abused for trying to help by providing a perspective that, though not necessarily popular, may actually assist those who pay attention.

But I’m just a wheelchair-bound acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA, so it makes no difference to me.

[Arnold E]

But I’m just a wheelchair-bound acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA, so it makes no difference to me.

Well, there you go!:cool:

[Jabawocky]

I am almost sure that Creamie and I share a common belief....CASA could be closed up and the job subbed out to the FAA....or NZCAA. Probably save a heap of $$ too.

I do not understand why Creamie is the focus of your venom. He just points out the reality....it is up to you (us all) to work the rest out.

I think 99% of the folk on here have not realised he is on our side....just not as misguided as we all get. Myself included.

Ulike some he is not on my ignore list. I learn heaps from him.:ok:

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

Rutan: If you or anyone else reckons there are people in CASA who protected an incompetent or criminal LAME, name them.

Name them.

If you haven’t got the guts to put up and prove it, learn to live with wallowing in this pointless quagmire until you go to your grave.

Frank: understood.

Leaddie said:
Quote:
And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places.
Errrrrm, why on earth wouldn’t you give those details?

If what you say is true, what’s the risk to you?

If someone made those statements, they are responsible for having made them.

Mr. Puff you are either being facetious or you have a very poor understanding of the way the real world works, most especially you do not understand the concept of "Chilling Effect"

In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction.


While my own very limited relationship with CASA has been satisfactory, if even one Tenth of the allegations made both here and at the AAT have any truth in them then it would be a very brave man to stand up to CASA who have both the tools and the financial resources to be very, very vindictive towards an individual if they so choose.

At best, one might hasten the retirement of a civil servant or perhaps alter his promotion path.

At worst you could expect to lose both livlihood, all your financial resources and be saddled with an aviation related criminal record as a vindicitve regulator pursues you for ever looking to punish you as severely as possible for the slightest infraction it thinks it can allege, without even having to provide substantive proof.

This is the problem with CASA: it is judge, jury and executioner.

Furthermore, and in my own opinion, CASA's hiring practices should set off big red flashing alarms all over the public service in that CASA have allegedly employed people who appear to me to have conflicts of interest so massive that I cannot see how they could be resolved without the CASA charter being amended to provide for fostering the aviation industry.

...and no Creampuff, you won't get those names or associations from me either because I don't want to get sued by the individuals concerned or hounded by CASA.

and be aware that once ADS-B out is mandated for GA your every movement can be examined in detail by CASA at the push of a button. You think they won't use that information? You don't think CASA has a "**** list" which is similar in concept to Barrier airlines alleged "snag sheet"?

[Kharon]

Well, there goes my new years resolution: not to become embroiled in the sillier threads on Pprune. Barrier was a good example achieved nothing except the obvious.

I find the 'Creampuff posts' invaluable; if you want to understand the opposition. Always and faithfully CP posts the 'other sides' response to your argument. Many times the defence strategy is mapped out for you, it's just a matter of 'reading' between the lines. To have access to someone who consistently shows you the way the opposition will attack is of great worth. Then instead of being 'defensive' against the 'great threat', perhaps an 'attack' strategy can be worked out. You need to learn how CASA play their game if you are ever to beat them at it.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. Mark Twain.

AUD $00.20 well spent. Now back to my resolution. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Creampuff]

I’m glad a few of you are paying attention. Jaba :ok:

Sunfish

And what are you doing about it, other than having pointless arguments with me?

A while ago you were suggesting that the whizkids in PM&C could shut CASA down over a weekend. Have you communicated your concerns to them? If so, what was the response?

Would you agree that unless the organ grinders in government decide that the monkeys in CASA are a problem, nothing’s going to change? Would you also agree that having a little tanty on PPRuNe is not an effective way of getting government to do something?

Here is the real crux of the problem, for those who are capable of paying attention. If you get into the ears of the organ grinders and convince them that CASA is, indeed, a hot bed of corrupt, vindictive, power hungry has-beens who’ll shut you down at the blink of an eye, this is what would actually happen next:

“How many votes are in it?”

And we all know the answer, and the consequences.

If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.

Well done the “Australian Aviation Associations Forum for releasing an “aviation policy” it “hopes” will foster and promote aviation in Australia and succeed in strengthening rural communities. But the naiveté is breathtaking.

Do a google search of: “The Australian Aviation Associations Forum”. It doesn’t have a website that I can find. Nor can I find a copy of the primary material, on the internet. They might be there somewhere, but the 5 minutes I searched for them is 4 minutes longer than an organ grinders’ attention span.

(BTW Sunny, you have (in my view, accurately) predicted in another thread what is actually required to precipitate any real change, and the ways in which everyone will avoid any responsibility for the circumstances that precipitate that change.)

[Frank Arouet]

Having known Creampuff for a considerable time, and despite his former employment, and without recourse to any personalities mentioned, his last post above should be read carefully printed and framed.

It identifies and sums up very accurately the problem and the solution.

If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.

Watch what happens in the Senate in February to gain an idea of any political will if you can all stay focused, and support those who are being as competent as possible in helping an ailing industry by presenting themselves for questions.

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your thoughtful response Creampuff.

I believe your response is an accurate portrayal of the status quo, and most probably pretty much sums up the attitude of some perhaps within CASA; they administer an area of the Australian economy that contains no swinging voters and that is not well understood by either politicians or the general public and of little interest to anyone - perhaps ranking slightly above subjects like prison administration and archival storage of records, but below subjects like the training of actuaries.

Change may come in one of Two ways; either a catastrophic accident or a little bit of "imperial overreach" - which will be what would trigger PM & C.

I could tell the story of a little Mandarin who made the mistake of requiring his chauffeured Government car to wait for him at night while he pleasured his mistress before driving him back to his wife. The next public servant who used that Chauffer was a very junior member of PM & C and they got to talking......

...A slight "departmental reorganisation" was then engineered over just a few days and the Mandarin found himself shorn of monthly first class overseas trips to a variety of popular destinations as well as automatic access to a Commonwealth car and a variety of other perks.

And the beauty of it Creampuff, is that the subject of this little game didn't even know why it happened or what triggered it and neither does the general public, just a small handful of public servants. Be warned.

[Ixixly]

Awww...is this the part where we all build a fire, sit around and sing Kumbaya?

Ok, end of my sarcasm for now, in all seriousness, these are all very interesting insights for the those of us juniors in aviation and indeed in the world in general, great reading from all!!

[Kharon]

CP –(Barrier # 422) "to the kinds of self-perpetuating folklore that is sprouted by “experts” and “spokespersons” for GA in Australia, whether from industry or on behalf of the regulator". Perhaps CP has hit the old nail squarely on the head here. Where subjective opinion and interpretation of a rule set can and frequently is, by both sides, used to suit a purpose. The Creampuff (Barrier #411) interpretation of Schedule 5 makes sense it is a fair, reasonable and probably reflects the spirit and intent of the piece. In a far from perfect world the maintenance provider motive for not offering an 'extension' could be for one of several: profit, which is self explanatory; ignorance which is unpardonable, or fear.

It seems the fear exists for several reasons and is more than likely justified, particularly if the suspect tyre blows on the next landing. The LAME has no idea where the next landing may be, the conditions or the amount of rubber that may or may not be removed. So the notion of bravely extending or numerating the available landings, prior to replacement is fraught. The notion that the aircraft was only provisionally serviceable deserves a mention. In an 'operational' world it may all make perfect sense, but is the stress, expense and risk of ending up in court defending the extension worth the price of a new tyre?

I have no doubt that if Creampuff were the judge and both sides adopted a reasonable attitude then the problem of subjective interpretation would go away, along with the difference between being "operationally sound" and 'legally un safe'. This may be the crux of 'sudden' maintenance problems. An entire fleet does not become unserviceable overnight; nor does a long standing operation, audited many times suddenly become a danger to all and sundry. Either the audit system is dangerously flawed or there is some extreme, subjective interpretation going on.

Take the humble stone chip on the leading edge of a propeller. Pilot one grounds the aircraft and makes a MR entry, pilot two writes it up on the MR and goes flying: pilot three ignores the thing and mentions it to the Chief engineer on return, pilot four borrows a round file and fixes it. Couple or three points there worth a thought:-

E.g. On the MR - "RH Propeller needs dressing"; whereas it is, in all probability the procedure which will be conducted, the CASA will view the statement as incorrect. All the pilot is qualified to write on the MR is "Indentations noted #2 propeller leading edge" or words to that effect. Pilots are not "qualified" to assess, quantify or suggest the prop needs dressing or, there is stone damage, or make any other "technical" assumptions. Sure it's a nonsense, every one can identify stone damage, until the matter ends up in court.

Suppose our prop damage had triggered an event which lead to the thing shearing off half way along, or the "in –the - field" attack with a round file had taken the prop out of tolerance. What then? In court you will need to be bullet proof and Teflon coated, were you qualified to make the technical assessment?, can you prove you were certified to effect a propeller rectification, etc. etc.

Now the CASA AWI pitches up and notes the prop damage; no options for this bloke. On the MR (tick) engineering advice sought (tick) acceptable outcome (tick). There are no other options available to the AWI. An AWI cannot say " Oh, that's a nasty ding Bloggs, toddle off now son and get the engineer to dress that out when you get home". Not going to happen.

What you deem to be a non issue may be 'operationally' acceptable or expedient, even safe as houses, until the wheels come off or an audit finds that a serious propeller issues has led to Coronial enquiry. The problems, for 'practical' operations, are for both CASA and the operator fraught with peril.

Remember being taught that the propeller was lethally "live" at all times, the MR and the legal obligations of the pilot are a similar beast – professionals approach both with caution and knowledge.

[VH-MLE]

“If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.”

Yes, that sums it up pretty well I think. I recall not that many years ago an organisation representing a sizeable number of pilots in this country were in a reasonably strong position to influence government policy at the GA level in Australia. Unfortunately, a significant amount of in-fighting (largely ego driven at the time I thought) ultimately led to the status quo being maintained.

It is clear that CASA enjoys little industry credibility (and not for the reasons usually trotted out by a few individuals on these forums) but until such time as organisations representing the aviation industry in this country get their act together in the manner referred to by Creampuff above, then there is little hope of change occurring any time soon…

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[Frank Arouet]

It is clear that CASA enjoys little industry credibility (and not for the reasons usually trotted out by a few individuals on these forums)

If it wasn't for the individuals trotting out their reasons, the regulator would be credible.

What other reasons does CAsA lack credibility?

I recall not that many years ago an organisation representing a sizeable number of pilots in this country were in a reasonably strong position to influence government policy at the GA level in Australia. Unfortunately, a significant amount of in-fighting (largely ego driven at the time I thought)

This sounds familiar. It would appear that the winning ego's have achieved nothing since being paid off by accepting money from the people they were elected to fight against.

Four thousand members according to Hansard.

[Jabawocky]

Thanks Creamie:ok:

Not often I pay attention :)

Funny how now folk are seeing you are actually on our side:D

You have hit the nail on the head.

So what do you reckon? Sub contract to the FAA?

C'mon Frank and Leadie, get that to happen :ok:

[jas24zzk]

Sunfish posted..

If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.

I agree with you and the other items that went with this quote.

The problem is, as Australians, and capitalists it will not happen. When the challenges of regulation rear their ugly head, we sit back and hope someone else will be the fall guy for our learning experience.
When they get dragged under the net, we pick up their work, make some extra money to pay a few people to make sure we don't go the same way, and we expand.

The start up operator has little chance.

Then you get the mid road operator...he gets undercut by the smaller operator, and the cycle continues, to only benefit the larger operator.
Consider milk bar versus a safeway owned service station. I'm lucky my town still has a viable milk bar.


I'm in the panel trade (i have my own shop) and we have been discussing this issue for over 20 years. Insurers 'steer' the work elsewhere for the most part, the rest they blatantly tell the client that I cannot repair their vehicle for whatever reason and they go elsewhere.
The industry knows whats going on, but will not join cohesively to tell the insurers to get knotted Of interest the insurers actions are against several trades practices act laws, but no single repairer has the funding to pursue them on it. Like aviation, the only way is by concentrated industrial action.....make the consumer squeal! :bored:

At the end of the day sunny, aviation and smash repair is the same. It isn't profitable to stand up and be counted, lest it help your smaller competitor, even if it means you will gain in the long term also. :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

So what do you reckon? Sub contract to the FAA?

C'mon Frank and Leadie, get that to happen http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You may be surprised what work has gone into making this happen. And not so much the subcontract part. This is happening as I write, but this is not ready for publication.

Of inportance within those Regs and supported I note by AOPA, is the concept of encouraging and fostering aviation. This sort of thing takes away the confrontationalist issues we suffer now and makes a minor infraction an educational experience.

[Creampuff]

One point of clarification: I’m not on anyone’s ‘side’.

Sometimes I agree with points being made by others; sometimes I disagree. Sometimes I agree with what CASA does and how it does it; sometimes not.

It’s an odd cultural difference between Australians and Americans.

Arguments on Downunda almost always deteriorate into personal attacks and dichotomies. (Someone said they agreed with something CASA did, therefore they are on CASA’s ‘side’, therefore they are to be abused and ridiculed.) US boards? Almost never.

Speaking of the USA compared with Australia, and sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing….

For example, I agree with Leaddie about the consequences of the different socio-political evolutions of Australia and the USA. Australians are ‘subjects’ of the Crown. Government is done to Australians, not for Australians. In contrast, in the USA the Federal government is grudgingly, suspiciously and barely tolerated (although there is of course a spectrum of attitudes). Although it’s the source of constant controversy, there are people who argue that the second amendment (the so-called ‘right to bear arms’) was included as a protection against, among other things, the risk of a tyrannical central government. Americans know how pommy-style government works, and they fought and died to be rid of it.

I agree that aviation regulation in Australia would be better if it were outsourced to the FAA, but not because CASA is a hot bed of corrupt, vindictive, power hungry has-beens who’ll shut you down at the blink of an eye. It’s not.

Rather, letting the FAA run the show couldn’t be any less bad than what Australia currently has, but you’d definitely save money. The regulatory reform program is a sick, expensive, complicated embarrassment. (Remember, the 1988 regulations were 155 pages long. They’ve been simplified to – wait for it – 1,541 pages. Almost exactly 10 times the size.) Put it out of its misery and everyone will stop tearing their hair out trying to plan around a completion timeframe described by the regulator as “not long” for over a decade. The US version of classification of operations seems to be understood and uncontroversial. The US maintenance rules seem to be better understood. (See – this post is relevant to this thread! ;) ) The FAA seems to know how to regulate for the continuing airworthiness of aircraft it type certified. Most of the Australian fleet was type certified in the USA. The other recognised countries seem to know what they are doing as well.

And a left field reason for letting the FAA loose in Australia: it might be a rude shock to some of the people who wished for it….

But as I’ve said with tedious monotony for a looooong time, this is matter for the organ grinders in government to make happen, not the monkeys in CASA.

[blackhand]

Much talk of the dreaded tyre.
No Kharon, it is not open and shut, the tyre can be "well worn" before it has to be replaced.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/369.pdf
Read and digest.
As for filing propellor blades with a round file:eek:, say no more.

As for delay in regulation reform, look to yourselves and all the various pissant organisations CASA has tried to please over the years.
Those that say PNG regs are the go, or bastardisation of the CAANZ regs were easier implemented there is a reason for that.
PNG CAA presented the regs and said here they are now comply. If that had happened in Australia you all would still be screaming NAZIs.
(Godwin's Law rules)

Kharon makes a very sallient point - the MR and the legal obligations of the pilot are a similar beast – professionals approach both with caution and knowledge.

[edsbar]

If you were maintaining your aircraft on Schedule 5 what would you do in regard to addressing these?

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/505821-pa-28s-may-have-control-cable-probs-too.html#post7647221

[Creampuff]

The FAA says buy a $5 magnifying glass and do a proper inspection. Cost? A few thousand dollars, across the fleet.

CASA says replace all cables that have stainless terminal fittings before 15 years ‘time in service’ (an odd use of that term…). Cost? Millions across the GA fleet.

Says it all.

GA in Australia had better get unified and competent at lobbying, very soon, because that multi-million dollar AD has already been drafted.

[blackhand]

Then again, Cessna SE SIDS, I replace all cables.
Maybe private Pilots and their aircraft "deserve" lower maintenance standards

[Creampuff]

They don’t “deserve” lower maintenance standards: they “have” lower maintenance standards. That’s one of the consequences of the different classifications of operations.

But you are being naughty. := The content of the obligation to inspect cables and cable terminations under Schedule 5 is the same, whether the aircraft the subject of the inspection is being released to private, aerial work or charter.

The only argument is about whether cables and terminations in excess of 15 years of age are prone to failures caused by defects or damage that cannot be picked up by periodic inspection, prior to catastrophic failure. I prefer the FAA’s answer.

[edsbar]

Hi Blackhand, as far as I can see the SIDs for SE Cessna s do not require cable replacement, just inspection each 600 hours or 12 months? All the SE SIDs refer to Inspection Procedure 20A-20-01.
Is there a requirement hidden somewhere else?