Views on CASA Schedule 5

[stevo200]

Hi all,

New to the page and I am currently completing my University thesis on an evaluation of the maintenance schedules and regulations within Australia. I'm fairly new to the light aircraft scene so please excuse my somewhat lack of expertise on the topic, but I am here to learn!

Back to my question, I was wondering what everyone's opinions were on the current regulations and any current issues, especially regarding Schedule 5 and they way maintenance is managed and enforced.

Feel free to write as long as a response as you like, the more information the better as I am interested to hear your views and reasoning in detail.

Thanks you in advance for you help and i look forward to hearing from you all!

Steven.

[kaz3g]

The worst and most expensive debacle to ever occur in the history of subordinate legislation around the English-speaking world?

A mish-mash of old and some new built on a philosophical foundation of retribution for any perceived breach of the provisions where not just intention is ruled out as a defence, but possibly also that of an honest and reasonable mistake?

All wrapped up in the abrogation of basic legal rights ordinarily pertaining in a civilised society, not by Act of Parliament, but by Executive decisions.

Kaz

[yr right]

Sched 5 was workable when the Aust ADs where invoiced ie AD hose 5 and alike but as usual knobs in casa to keep there jobs changing rules etc all the time to keep them self's employed.
Feel free to pm me if you like I have to work with what we be given on a daily basis
Cheers

[Old Akro]

In principle, you have to acknowledge that the manufacturers maintenance schedule is best.

The problem is that (in the case of light aircraft) the manufacturers created maintenance schedules for the US environment where following them is not mandatory. So, they were produced as a guide, not a mandate.

With 20/20 hindsight we can see that manufacturers schedules over maintain some components, skip others which should be included (hence Cessna SIDS) and has never been updated to consolidate AD's. It also does not take into account better material and quality of parts available now compared with 40 years ago.

This works in the US system where departures from the manufacturers schedule is allowed, the FAA credits A&P mechanics with having some brains and there is a network of FAA offices which are approachable.

Australia's military based, centralist, bureaucratic system that has a culture of not trusting the competence of pilots and engineers can't live without a mandated list.

Hence schedule 5 was born. I reckon it was written around the maintenance requirements of a Tiger moth. Its loose and not very prescriptive and can be quite inappropriate - but strict adherence to manufacturers schedules is expensive and frequently inappropriate. Schedule 5 is the only mechanism we have to allow an element of common sense freedom.

[yr right]

Schedule 5 or manufactures inspections are just the minimum that you look at. When you do a service you look at a whole lot more than is in the work sheet. At the end of the day it's a minimum and that's all. Casa won't to remove shed 5 and remove any liabitly that goes with it. If you places on manufactures then you must comply with what they call up. Like engine control changes at engine o/h etc

Cheers

[Mick Stuped]

Manufactures maintenance will make it very hard for all of us operating in the bush to survive the extra costs. The powers that be push for manufactures maintenance schedules seem to forget that we all don't have the luxury of having a LAME based at all outback strips.

A lot of aircraft are satellite based 2 - 3 hours from the main base. On Sched 5 we have the option of pilot maintenance for the 50 hourly(change oil and filters). This works well, we switch over aircraft for 100 hrlys burning up 4 - 6 hours of the MR on ferries. That's acceptable and acknowledged as part of the price of offering a regional and remote service.

If we go to MM or Cessna progressive schedule from what I understand, then we automatically start burning up 8 to 12% of the MR just in ferries alone as on Cessna MM certain parts of the current 100 hrly will need to be done on the 50 hrly and are not pilot maintenance items.

So CASA in their wisdom to reduce the aging fleets and recommending MM schedule with the new part 135 etc, will actually age the fleet in the bush quicker, increase our cost, (someone has to pay for the extra ferries) and drive us out of business.

The cost of having a full time LAME in the air running around doing 50 hourly's is cost prohibitive and realistically unworkable.

Another example of the bush copping a double whammy. Will outback stations and communities and tourists pay the extra. Well history shows us no. Look at the amount of work left in the bush compared to 30 years ago when it was affordable for everyone that was remote to fly. With this on top of SIDS and rising fuel costs think Outback Aviation is doomed unless a bit of common sense from the regulators prevails.

[VH-XXX]

What do you mean by "enforced?"

Are you referring to CASA checking compliance with schedule 5?

[ramble on]

Kaz,

I like your posts......:}

One of my favorites:

"I remember who sold out GA in this country... minister Anderson who gave our airports away to big business for peanuts on leases that the monkeys could have written.

And his mates and the next mob all failed to sort it when it all started to fall apart.

They are all the b....y same!

Kaz"

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Schedule 5 would be the ideal maintenance schedule, if it was allowed to operate as intended.

If you have a knowledge of the design and certification standards of the FAA, including continuing airworthiness requirements, you would know how the US system works, and the Australian system was supposed to, but hasn't worked.

Schedule 5 IS FAR 43, Appendix D, (except for some added AU bullsh1t) an entirely comprehensive Inspection Schedule, it is NOT a system of maintenance, as the Schedule 5 is miss-described.

If you are maintaining virtually any FAR 23 aircraft, operating under Part 91, it is Part 91 that describes the maintenance to be done, Part 43 says how to do it, and (in some cases) Part 145 will tell you where to do it.

If the same aircraft is operating under Part 135 (roughly Charter) there will be additional maintenance requirements, which will be carried out per. Part 43, including the Appendix D.

[As an aside, this is how the Cessna SIDs are not mandatory for Part 91, but are for Part 135 and up, but I am not going to go into the explanation here]

The OEM MM is most certainly not "the best". except for some relatively recent examples, FAR 23 (and earlier CAR 3 equivalents) assume the use of the FAA Annual Inspection Schedule ( Appendix D) will be carried out using acceptable (or authorised) data, which includes but is certainly NOT limited to OEM MM. The OEM MM is required by part 43, Appendix D, but it is only part of the suite of acceptable data.

Indeed, with the Australian misapplication of continuing airworthiness standards for most US built aircraft, the CASA list of deficient OEM MMs is increasing. Mostly they are NOT deficient at all, when they just form part of, but not nearly all the acceptable data needed to complete routine maintenance tasks and all but major repairs.

For may of you, if you are half way smart, you will have at least FAA AC 43.13A/B as CASA approved data in you CAR 30 manuals.

Indeed, in general terms, the OEM MM will only include model specific information, and assumes that all the necessary additional acceptable data to be used will be found in the AC library. Many of your will be familiar with the wealth of detail in FAA AC43.13A and AC 43.13B, and many more FAA publications that cover specific continuing airworthiness issues, that are common to most aircraft.

During the period Bruce Byron was CASA CEO, a instrument was raised, which allowed the whole FAA AC library ( and the equivalent from other NAA ) as CASA approved data, without the need for CASA approval for each CAR 30 workshop.

Needless to say, there was much resistance from bowels of CASA, it eliminated the "data approval industry" at a stroke, the present shower, unsurprisingly, have completely reversed to Byron/Vaughan reform, prohibiting the use of such worldwide acceptable data in Australia, without (expensive and long time delay) CASA approval.

Right now, CASA has no idea where it is going with future GA maintenance rules, but the "iron ring" is pushing Part 42/145 as it stands, a disaster in the making.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

The work sheets for Sched 5 have been around forever even before it was called that. The intendant use was that is was for aircraft that didn't have a maintenance sched in the m/m. Its success has brought about its own undoing as everyone has adopted it as mainstream. That's why it has Ag floats aircon etc already listed. At the end of the day is just a guild to what has to be done its a minium amount of work that is required.
The addinion of what the manufacture calls up in chapter 5 for life components is what everyone is worried about
Now CASA don't wont that responsibility and will close the loop hole down for what of better words/
As for AC43 we always been able to use it if it was in the approved docs list in the M/M for the aircraft you where working on or if a repair was done via an EO by a car30 and he stated to use it.
When an aircraft is modified for its original state say a Raisebeck mods it come with its own M/M which is listed then on the LBS to carry out the maintenance IAW with it.
Now you can use the Manufactures sched and still do 50 hourlys all you have to do is change LBS.


cheers

[LeadSled]

yr right,
Why don't you stop trying to teach people to suck eggs, and just read what is written. By your last post, if that is what you really think, your knowledge of both the legal and practical requirements of maintaining continuing airworthiness is seriously deficient --- not uncommon in the GA fraternity.

I suggest you catch up on some of the CASA AWB of recent times on the subject.

Then go actually read FAR 43, Appendix D, and compare it to Schedule 5.

As for "Schedule 5 worksheets", that does not comprise acceptable data (or as CASA likes to say- approved). It seems to me you are very open minded, the trouble is, it is open at both ends.

You are clearly a product of the Australian system, where whatever you have been taught is all you seem to know ---- that what you have been taught might be wrong (like your objections to LOP running engines) never occurs to you. As long as CASA says it, you accept it.

Whether you like it or not, instructions for the continuing airworthiness of FAA certified airworthiness are part of the certification of the aircraft --- there is a very strong legal line of thought that (particularly since mid-1998) most Australian (US built) light aircraft have an invalid C.of A, because they have not been maintained to the requirements of the original FAA Certificate of Airworthiness standards.

As I have said before, the the OEM MM forms part of the acceptable (approved) data for Schedule 5, it is NOT either/or --- indeed, the OEM MM is one of the documents that is automatically CASA "approved" ----- although I have no doubt of the story posted by cleartoenter, that is not the fault of Schedule 5, that is the fault of the ignorance of the aircraft "Registered Operator" and his/her LAME.

There is far more than AC 43.13A/B that you should be cognoscente of in maintaining FAA certified aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

PS: "Mandatory Service Bulletins" ?? An OEM service bulletin becomes mandatory when an NAA turns it into an AD. Remember, the Cessna SIDs are not SBs, they are included in the MM.

[No Hoper]

As Yr Right has intimated, the intent of schedule 5 was to detail the annual/100 hour inspection requirements for those aircraft with less than ideal OEM requirements. Most notably for elec/inst/radio categories.
It is to be read in conjunction with the OEM MM and other approved data including mandatory replacement and overhaul criteria.

[Sunfish]

Question: For an experimental I'm building I need to produce a maintenance scheme.

I have a draft MM from hte kit manufacturers website. I have AC 43 and of course MM for the engine.

What should I avoid? Common sense tells me I should use the draft MM in conjunction with AC 43 for the airframe, and the engine and propeller MMs. Additoins might be needed for autopilot servos and electric trim.

What am I missing?

[VH-XXX]

Sunfish just write Maintenance IAW aircraft MM and Schedule 5.

Your SAAA maintainers course would have clearly articulated this.

Making your own is also very simple. Perhaps download one like a Jabiru one from their website and modify it. They really just are a checklist and rather generic. The important part is actually properly using it come 100 hourly time.

[yr right]

We'll leadsled if you do shed 5 and unless you have that you will so sb etc o your lbs you don't have to do them. However if you doing it iaw manufactures you have to. The only time a sb is mandated is if it was an AD but clearly your nose bleed must have covered you eyes from being up so high in your seat. And as for tell you to suck eggs maybe you should take some note or what a a low life spanner swinger is someone you can take note of.

Cheers

[yr right]

So leady tell us all the last time you actually co ordinarneate and signed a shed 5 release off.
Cheers

[yr right]

Once again you only have to do what is in your LBS. However if you wish to have your aircraft in charter cat and you have your lbs in sched 5 you will have to change it to manufactures insp and all that go along with that.
Think I'm wrong about SB we'll I think not I had a big win in court as an expert whiteness against casa on that very thing. Plus several other points of law that they said was law but wasn't.
Cheers

[LeadSled]

yr right,
About the only thing that can be reasonably comprehended from your semi-illiterate posts are that you have a less than adequate understanding of what current Australian law says on the maintenance of airworthiness of Australian aircraft.
Sadly, you are not the only one with such knowledge shortcomings.
Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

Leady
Go hope in your seat and read the lbs. That is what the maintenance has to be done to. Casa have a push on to change all the lbs to an higher standard. Now you ask me if I was a pilot now some time back so I'll ask you again. Are you an engineer. When was the last time you signed for work done by yourself. When did you last issue a M/R.

Cheers

And btw I done over casa in a law court on this very question so have you !!!!

[No Hoper]

Schedule 5 is "accepted" or approved data for maintenance of an aircraft, if that aircraft's log book statement stipulates such for the maintenance release inspection.

The log book statement includes election of operational category as well as maintenance category. There is also a statement about Airworthiness Directives and modifications applicable to the aircraft.

Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 5, as well as maintenance called up in the approved OEM data, (POH, maintenance manual, structural repair manual, modifications etc)and State of Origin Airworthiness Directives form part of the continuing airworthiness instructions for an aircraft.

Part 2 of Schedule 5 can work, but not in isolation.

[yr right]

SB and MSB do not have to be done under sched 5 if they are not listed in the LBS. An AWB is not LAW it is not an AD. If the AD states an SB etc it has to be done. If you run a Manufactures SOM then you MUST comply with the SB etc an ADs.
Its all in the LBS


cheers

[No Hoper]

CASA Schedule 5, Part 2, lists the requirements for release to service for annual/100 hour inspection of class B aircraft. It is not the complete list of requirements for continuing airworthiness.

[yr right]

We'll creamie the problem is casa dose not won't to hold reasonability of it for an aircraft that has a SOM in the M/M it's that simple. As I have said it a minimum of what is looked at. What ever they can wipe there hands off that's what they doing. Sched 5 was and is fine. It was better when the Aust ADs where there to back it up but they slowly been errorded and now we have country of orgin. Like AD hose 5 simple easy to understand and in your face can't argue about it as it was an AD. But no change for change sake. We ended up with a mess.

SB were looked at by CAsa and then made into an Ad if required.

Cheers

[yr right]

Well Clearedtoreenter
Your not on your own there I can assure you. But like I say the check list is the minimum that you look at. Times are changing slowly faster for some slower for others. Most of these aircraft mow are plus 30 years old would you drive a car that old now. The weird thing is that as a lame we looking after your life's we sign all day every day that.


Cheers

[yr right]

What I see is going to happen is outside forces will dictate what your maintenance is done too. This is already happening for Mine oil and gas type work. For smaller aircraft its going to your insurance company that will or wont insurer your aircraft. On the maintenance side of things a lot of work shops arnt insured for an engine to be ran as on- condition and as such they wont issue a M/R . Right or wrong this is the position that I see happening and is happening.
Cheers

[thorn bird]

YR, Sadly I think your right.
When a regulator gets so out of touch with reality, I mean even poor old Clint
Can't work it out, and if he can't , nobody can, Others with a vested interest, such as insurance providers, or big business auditors will step in and set the standard.
Whatever ragged remnant of GA remains after the parasites have finished faces that reality, by then CAsA will be irrelevant because our " Industry" will largely exist Offshore anyway.

[yr right]

What's sad if ever a country needs GA it's Australia but casa don't won't ga it's to hard for them. And that's the reality sadly
Cheers

[dubbleyew eight]

I think most maintenance is done by looking at the aircraft, looking methodically at every functional component of the aircraft and fixing what is deficient.
once that is done the pens retire to the office, drag out the paperwork and then go through the items one by one.
done that, sign.
not relevant, cross out and initial.
done that, sign.
etc.

that to me is why flavour of the maintenance paperwork is almost irrelevant.
the aeroplane itself is the actual checklist used.

I have never seen a LAME, even the super diligent ones, ever use the paperwork as the work is being done. the aeroplane in front of them is the checklist, not the paperwork. how else do you keep the grease and oily fingerprints off the paperwork?

CAsA can crap on about this as much as they like because it is irrelevant really.

....although there is a chap here in the west that recently pissed off a CAsA audit enough that he has been declared a not fit and proper person over some paperwork indiscretion and has lost LAME licence, Pilot's Licence and employment. (no aeroplanes were damaged in bring you this message)

[thorn bird]

"although there is a chap here in the west that recently pissed off a CAsA audit enough that he has been declared a not fit and proper person over some paperwork indiscretion and has lost LAME licence, Pilot's Licence and employment."


Probably decided by some ex RAAF fitter or Baggage handler or maybe an industry reject who wouldn't know a spanner from a hammer.


Sad aint it, as CAsA slowly weed out the competent LAME's, they are turning maintenance into a box ticking exercise much like flying training has become.


I guess the current Philosophy is the more boxes to tick the safer the outcome.


I have been told Class B maintenance is actually better than class A because LAME's get more time to actually maintain the aircraft rather than sit in the office putting ticks in boxes.


Oh well, once the final nail is nailed, them that can afford it will probably turn to New Zealand to get their Kiwi registered aircraft maintained to a safer standard.

[yr right]

dubbleyew-eight
Yep no need to look a shed 5 paper work. I said before it's the minimum we look at. The aircraft are the sheets. You look you see you investigate. If you see some thing that's not right you look deeper. That's why we have additional work sheets.
It's called common sense even though the goody goodys are saying there no such thing we'll there is and more so gained with experience. Now of course if you looking at a aircraft you haven't worked on before and it a som paper work you look

The aircraft can't fly till the paper work excreeds the mtow of the aircraft.

Cheers

[thorn bird]

YR, never a truer word was spoken, and I speak from experience.
Our incompetent regulator is culling experienced, competent engineers and replacing them with Box tickers.
I could very well be dead today, or one of my pilots, or worse one of our customers, but for the eagle eye of experience who spotted something that could have resulted in the ass falling off the airplane, no way I would have seen it, I'm just a pilot, he did, he's an engineer, I do my thing, fly them and try not to break them, he does his thing and covers my ass.
God bless all engineers, our guardian angels!! God's curse on CAsA who's corruption will eventually kill a lot of people.

[dubbleyew eight]

clinton I don't stuff around with paperwork.

ask yourself this though.
if an aeroplane has , say, 172 components to it. how can a paperwork system by any flavour do anything other than trace that the 172 components were checked for fitness for flight?

just bye the bye I replaced my oil hoses in the last annual.
they were on the aircraft for about 20 years.
hoses were made from aeroquip 303-6.
there was not one identifiable deterioration in them. the inner liners were sound and undamaged. the hoses were still supple and flexible.
now replaced with the stratoflex equivalent hose and good for another 20 years.

[LeadSled]

If you run a Manufactures SOM then you MUST comply with the SB yr right,
Not so, many OEM SBs are not airworthiness items.

To incorporate them or not is a matter for the registered operator. Of course, and SB that an NAA makes an AD is a different matter. If a LBS says that all OEM SBs have to be carried out, that LBS is NOT enforceable, in that respect.

What many of you "just don't get" is that the OEM MM forms part of the acceptable ( CASA Approved) data that must be used to complete Schedule 5, but is not the only data required.

The other thing that many of you "don't get" is that FAA certified light aircraft assume that they will be maintained to FAR 43 Appendix D (which is the same as Schedule 5, almost) and the OEM MM does not include in the MM a lot of information contained in various FAA ACs related to continuing airworthiness.

Tootle pip!!

[Avgas172]

Well said Sled ...:ok:

[yr right]

yes the LBS dictates what you have to do ive been saying that. If you run the Manufactures SOM it says that you must do the SBs. The SB will then give you the option of doing it or not unless its a MSB.
The wording has also change in the sched 5 as well and maybe you need to read that as well.
Also when you change your LBS it has to be sent to CASA and if its not good enough it wont be approved .Also this is Aust it don't mean a dame what the USA do or don't do
Cheers

[dubbleyew eight]

clinton be careful not to mix private owner category B aircraft maintenance with commercial category A maintenance.

I never comment on cat A maintenance.

[yr right]

Let me make this perfectly clear


The Log Book Statement on an Australian Register Aircraft is WHAT the aircraft must be maintained and controlled too period. There is NO room to move on this period.


At the end of a service check it then written on the M/R {every serviceable aircraft has an M/R] what it is maintained to.


This is the same for class A or B


The main difference between A and B is a class A MUST have maintenance carried out IAW with a SOM. A SOM dose NOT mean it has to be manufactures BUT it cant be any less than manufactures.


Sched 5 now states this








6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional








I live and breath this every day as do all LAME this is our bread and butter so to speak BTW you stil not answered my question of when did you last certified for work you carried out or issue an M/R or even talk to an AWI me two days ago.


Now Clinton please tell me im incorrect in the above statements. I and everyone would be please if you can put as all at ease or the fact im right. Or has it some what silenced your tongue because im a dill and you cant bear to say im correct. Your inability to answer will show us all.


Cheers

[yr right]

In that case, would you buy a 20 year old 'private' aircraft with no airframe, engine or prop logbooks?


I can answer that. Only a fool would how ever you can but you have to have every thing O/H and as say it was a rare aircraft then a full restro
.


I rejected a mitly million $ aircraft sale because the prop S# weren't the same as the log books. If we had of brought it back to Aust we would have had to install new props.


Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

Reading all this highlights to me just how something that was considered difficult and onerous, (like four year major inspections with intervals of minor inspections), evolved into something that appeared simple, safe and straightforward, (like 100 hour/annual inspections), could be corrupted into something lacking understanding of function, desire, result and design that results in prohibitive costs that further drives the plethora of nails in the GA coffin.


Obviously this country needs more Lawyers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uirC4Yfb8A

[yr right]

Yep 100 100 major simple easy and ADs to back up. Now every service is a major inspection.
Cross the T and dot the I or your in trouble lol
Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/hitlermoustache.jpg


Watch out for this dude.

[yr right]

That's statement straight out of the sched 5 program

Cheers

[yr right]

Like I said it's straight out of sched 5. That's unless I've hacked in to the casa site and added it. Mmm maybe I'm cleverer than I thought I was. I'm thinking maybe you need to read the entire document and not just the work sheets. It's all on the casa work sheets

Cheers

[Old Akro]

The CAR's are held on the AusLii site, not CASA.

Schedule 5 is here:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 5 CASA maintenance schedule (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/sch5.html)

I can't find it either.

[LeadSled]

Also this is Aust it don't mean a dame what the USA do or don't doyr right expresses a common enough view, that was almost correct until mid-1998, and is most certainly not true and correct now.

yr right, I sincerely suggest you acquaint yourself with the details of how an Australian C.of A, now, is issued against a certificate of validation for the original state of origin Certificate of Airworthiness. We no longer issue ( and have not since late 1998) a unique Australian C.of A against unique Australia design and certification standards. With the enactment of CASR Parts 21-35, previous Australian certification rules were repealed.

That leads to the situation where, for the Australian C.of A to be valid, the aircraft must comply with, and continue to comply with, the ( in the majority of cases, FAA) TCDS. As the original state of origin C.of A includes instructions for continuing airworthiness, those instructions must be complied with, with for the individual aircraft's Australian C.of A to remain valid.

As many people have found out, at great expense, when selling an aircraft back into the US market, it can cost a lot of money to bring an incorrectly maintained Australian aircraft up to the standards of the original C.of A., so that an FAA C.of A can be issued.

yr right, and others can be forgiven for their apparent ignorance, as a good number in the airworthiness areas of CASA don't understand the ramifications of the current law (which, after 15 years, can hardly be called new) so it is probably a "bit of an ask" for those who just blindly follow CASA instructions, rather than actually reading what the regulations actually say, to be any better informed than many CASA AWIs.

The basic lack of knowledge by CASA AWIs is, I presume, the reason these departures from the actual requirements of the law are not picked up on audits.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

Well Leadsled
How many aircraft have you sent back to the USA I have forgotten how many ive sent back and yes there is a lot of work that has to be carried out to return one. Why is that. Because it dosent matter a dame what the USA require when the aircraft is on the Aust reg. Its that simple.


How many CofA have you done. Me too many. Yes while the Type Cert is now reconized by CASA there is still a whole lot of work that has to be carried out before you can put the VH on the side of the aircraft.


So as I said it don't mean a dame what other countrys do in regards to maintenance it only matter whats on the LBS its that simple.


Now go look at
CAAP 42B-1(1)


Cheers

[LeadSled]

yr right,
I am sure you earnestly believe what you post, but yr wrong.

As to the reg quoted, has it ever occurred to you that it is futile to quote a single reg. in isolation, and build an argument out of it.

Do you actually believe that CASA has the legal power to amend the US type certificate of a US certified aircraft. Has it occurred to you that, due to seriously stuffed up Australian regulations, we may have regulations that, if enforced in a literal sense, can cause non-compliance elsewhere.

As to what I might have been involved with removing from the AU register, the most memorable de-mod program cost in excess of AUD$1.0M, obviously it was not a Cessna 172, but it was not a HCRPT aircraft, either.

As I said before, read and understand what the ramifications of current regulations actually are, rather than just regurgitating the same old same old.

Just as a matter of interest, what qualifications are required to produce a "Returns to service" document, such as a MR. Does it need to be a LAME -- under the current regulations.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Creampuff has already explained to you the legal standing of a CAAP.

[dubbleyew eight]

can you see a common thread occurring here?

years ago the regs were published in a pair of inch thick publications.
plus a few other paper documents.
with these in hand you were certain that when you had read to the end you had read all the laws. there was nothing else that could trip you up.

then CAsA produced the searchable CD. these ran for over 10 years.
CAsA had a subscription service and provided a fully updated copy every few months.
you could very effectively search the entire document set.

now with the supposed improvements in technology the ever increasing volume of guff produced in the name of legislation has been placed on the austlii website.
nowadays you can never be certain that you have found anything.
I gave up trying to read the supposedly improved legislation when I followed a link from the casa website and after reading for half an hour noticed a pane in the right hand side of the screen that said it had been repealed.

if you can't even find what is current legislation these days what hope has anyone got?

like most of the guys I know we no longer give a fcuk what the legislation is.
the air hasn't changed.
the aeroplanes haven't changed.
we'll continue doing it all the same way we always have and CAsA can get fcuked.

I really feel sorry for you guys in industry that have to try to make all this incompetence actually work.

[yr right]

So lead as it won't apply to yr self but when it all goes pear shaped and the old judge looks over his glasses what do you say I don't give a hoot about the caap. If you believe that you are living in a dream world. When it comes to maintenance like I said that you can't understand the lbs is the bible nothing else.
The way any place detremines how they comply to maintenance is the state in which it flys and the type cert holder. This you fail to see. That's why we have a heap of Australian own ADs that Arnt found any place out.

As any lame has a duty of care we are done. It will come. Time very soon that the owner will be ask to sign that they don't won't something done. Funny thing is when your engine or component is sent a way for o/h all the sbs are done

[Old Akro]

Now go look at
CAAP 42B-1(1)


see Clinton's post:

If a CAAP says that, it's just some gifted amateur's earnest hope as to what some real rules might mean.

[yr right]

ummmm may be but a court will not look at it like that. That is the problem.
The caap is written with definition's etc and so why did you not follow the caap. so what are you going to say ???????
Its alright for you all to be saying this that and the other but you don't have to deal with this as an Lame dose.
We have a duty of care done and dusted.
The word recommended in a court means it has to be done.
Once you are a Lame that is it your always a lame you cant pick and choose when you wont to be and when you don't.
Now as owners you are responsible for your maintenance on your aircraft.


cheers

[dubbleyew eight]

In that case, would you buy a 20 year old 'private' aircraft with no airframe, engine or prop logbooks?

I realised just now while I was putting the spanners back in the workshop that I actually have an answer to that question.

I have purchased two vintage aeroplanes for restoration.
one has immaculate paperwork.
years of entries made by wally thompson during the period he was a LAME at kelleberrin is where wally's name first entered my noggin. wally is now a qualified aeronautical engineer.
the books are useless totally because the aircraft is undergoing a ground up strip to components restoration.

the second aeroplane has no log books at all. it has been in australia for 38 years with its nose pushed up against departmental bastardry.
the original owner in england died and the aircraft was purchased from the deceased estate. the papers were thought lost and it was only some time afterwards that it was discovered that the relatives clearing out the estate found the books, thought they were useless and burned them.
this aircraft will also undergo a ground up strip to components restoration.

now lost log books are not the end of the world.
as my old deceased LAME told me log books get lost all the time by relatives when owners die.
you merely start new books. if the life hours are known the book is started with a statement that the hours are believed to be xxxx and the book continues on.
if the hours are not known a log book statement is made to the effect and the book starts at zero. the proviso being that if the hours are ever known the log entries will be corrected.

I described ground up restorations for both the aircraft.
in reality there is no such thing. there is merely maintenance.
at the end of a ground up restoration there is merely the annual maintenance sign off.

the designs for both aircraft are no longer certified so they will return to the air as experimental aircraft. both aircraft have VH registrations assigned to them.

so yes, there are types of aircraft that I would and have bought without logbooks.

[LeadSled]

ummmm may be but a court will not look at it like that. That is the problem.
The caap is written with definition's etc and so why did you not follow the caap. so what are you going to say

yr right,
Firstly, have a look at the preamble of a CAAP, then look at the "court" record.

LAMEs have been taken to the cleaners by CASA AWIs, even though the CAAP was followed.

In one case I know of, the LAME appealed the CASA "administrative action", on the basis that he had complied with the CAAP.

The appeal failed, complying with the CAAP (CASA's own document) was found to not be sufficient to defend a charge of incorrect or inadequate performance of a maintenance task.

Silly (or strange) as the above seems, (and in the above case, I am of the view the CAAP was adequate, and the AWI was very unreasonable, but the AWI position was upheld in the appeal) it is the regulations that count.

Previously, Creampuff has defined the standing of CAAPs, it is as well to understand what he is saying.

Maintenance must be accomplished per. what rules actually say, not what somebody "has been given to understand", "believes", "has been taught", or all the variations used to explain a "knowledge deficiency".

Of course, it doesn't need to be like this, and it is not like this in any other country, of which I have experience and/or knowledge. And that is quite a few.

This completely unreasonable expectation, placed on the the shoulders of people who are tradesmen, is a direct result of the CASA approach to aviation regulation, producing the well know complex, contradictory and impenetrable "law", where "compliance" is all , and confidence in being compliant, by the most conscientious person, just is not possible.

And, of course, "the Australian way" has nothing to do with air safety outcomes.

Tootle pip!!

[No Hoper]

Refer CAR 41

41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions

(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft
must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the
aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time
included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance
schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

As Yr Right has pointed out, the CAAP is a method of complying with the regulations and rightly suggests that you need to maintain the components as required by the OEM. Including those damn vac pumps, unless the vac pump has wear indicator.

[dubbleyew eight]

just occasionally you see posts with such clarity it takes your breath away.
clinton and leadsled you pair are peelers!

of course the other side of the coin is that CAsA really are wankers.:mad:

[thorn bird]

"of course the other side of the coin is that CAsA really are wankers.:mad:"


What a way to run a regulatory system!!!


Damned if you do...damned if you don't!!


The tragedy is the "rule of the regulator" is gathering pace, the rule of law is being thrown aside and these Corrupt assh...les are destroying a whole industry,and I have no idea why? no wonder politics in this country is descending into Farce, the tail is wagging the dog.
What do they hope to gain?, will they all get Knighthoods?, accolades from their peers?? what could possibly be their motive??, when the industry is no more they cease to have a purpose, like a malignant cancer they are destroying the host.

[yr right]

No don't work for CASA never have never will. All we doing is saying whats happening and keep our sorry arses out of the court system and making you as owners a where of your own responsibility's

[Perspective]

Clinton,
"Only the right maintenance, carried out in the right way at the right time, means more safety."
Encapsulates the belief of many an ame, but maybe look at this way, as you mentioned, a Vac Pump left alone, can often operate quite safely for many years
And hours without failure, and without replacing it at that 500hr mark you do avoid introducing human error and intrusion into the equation.
But, as has been proven many times, allowing aircraft to be maintained with loose component overhaul time frames in many cases leads to components operating long after they should have been removed and overhauled/replaced,

For the same reason as you suggest some components are renewed-maybe prematurely,

"continue the religious metaphor, merely faith-based maintenance that often turns out to be counter-productive"

This works both ways, some people leave components far longer than designed, in the belief that it will never be a problem or fail, rather than change.

Surely you can see that by enforcing component manufacturers recommendations for component overhaul periods, removes the opinion of the maintainer out of the equation, and also places liability back onto the component
Manufacturer rather the ame.

I've seen a few cables break at the swage fitting, held together with the lock wire, the cables were not worn and looked fine, not corroded, but broken they were. Had they been on a regular replacement schedule-maybe 15yrs, that would probably never have happened, but yes, in changing them, again, you introduce human factors-error and intrusion, but they won't last forever.

I couldn't agree more about the right maintenance at the right time, but unless you can guarantee everyone maintaining those aircraft are singing from the same hym sheet, the only way to ensure things aren't let go until they break is to enforce the manufacturers time frames, take away the decision to do or not to do so to speak.
And the Data, why do you think hartzell 10yr period is enforced, and not (in some cases) McCauley. AD/prop/1
It's not that one is immune from corrosion ect, but not enough of the Data about what was found in the field made it back to the regulator. (My opinion)
But as you suggest, unless there is a big difference in failure rate seen between manufacturers, does it matter, probably you find out when eventually overhauling the McCauley and everything is thrown in the Bin..
Get used to the idea now of Sched. 5 gone. Except if you own a Cub..

[No Hoper]

Clinton
my post referencing CAR 41 was in response to your question:Does “a clear reading” of any regulation amongst the thousands of pages of civil aviation regulations answer that question? Not that I can see.As has been said before, the Schedule 5 is not to be used in isolation. But I trust you understand my financial and safety interest in pressing for mandatory maintenance to be based on science and data rather than intuition and folklore You as the registered owner/operator can apply for an alternative method of compliance through your local AWI, as long as you can substantiate it with all the real data and science that you have.

[yr right]

Im fully aware of the legal requirements of a Caap is and I have said that before. The proplem is we work under two sets of rules 1 casa and now common law where the prove of quilt is far less.
Ask Terrt Mac at coota how much his legal cost where in regrad to a vac pump.


Now when you get you lic its when you start to learn. Not before. The responsibility that goes with holding an LAME lic cannot be realized until you yourself hold that little book in your hand .


Now I developed this a long time ago its call the Oh **** Manoeuvre



That happens when I say gee we need to replace this part
You say oh do we really need to
I say well no oh are well you be doing the Oh **** Manoeuvre
You say whats that
I say that when your 50 feet above the fence its hot it goes spat spot blat
and you go OH ****
You say mmm we might change that then
I say yeah we should.


Do you know how many times I have to use that saying


cheers
science awaits again

[Two_dogs]

When reading CAR 41, one should also have a quick look at CASR 202.220 and 202.222



CAR 41

41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions

(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft
must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the
aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time
included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance
schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.CASR 202.220 Definitions for Subpart 202.BF
registered operator has the meaning given by regulation 47.100.CASR 202.222 Reference to holder of a certificate of registration
(1) A reference in CAR to the holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft is taken to be a reference to the registered operator of the aircraft.

[dubbleyew eight]

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.


honestly you lot all need to learn how to read.
and not insignificantly you need to understand why there is something in legislation.

here is the quote again with my emphasis in red.

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

you fcukwits have not understood that clause at all.

some historical background that may or may not be relevant.
in perth the head of the surf life saving organisation at the time was a member of our club of pilot owners. he tried to get approval for the club members to donate their time with the surf life saving clubs paying the fuel cost to mount shark patrols along the perth beaches.
in perth there is a popular "city and beaches" vfr lane along the coast that many members fly along for the views on a regular basis.
"why not organise them to look out for sharks while they fly?" was the motivator.
CAsA refused to allow private pilots to fly the shark patrols "because of the uncertain nature of the maintenance".
I know all this because I was an alphabet office bearer doing most of the message passing at the time.

so if you understand the import of my red emphasis the paragraph means something entirely different from what you have been blathering on about.

btw W8 does NOT WORK FOR CAsA.

[No Hoper]

you fcukwits have not understood that clause at all.If you are intimating that "Operations" in Para 41 do not include Private Operations, then you are the one misunderstanding the regulations.
CASA refused to allow private pilots to fly the shark patrols "because of the uncertain nature of the maintenance". I'm sure it would have been because they did not have an AOC for airwork, covering survey tasks.

[yr right]

mmmmm me thinks it was a casa hit and run to see what is known pmsl

[yr right]

I think what you have forgotten is that aircraft maintenance is based on preventive maintenance and not just changing parts when things break. Now don't forget that if there is an accident who sues who and how is the sued person going to be. So at the end of the day I don't get paid enough to do **** shoddy work and let stuff go with the option of court over my head and why should any lame have to have that as we'll. basically I'm sorry to say if you can't afford to maintain your aircraft to a level that now more than ever is higher than it's ever been sell it and just hire it.
That's the bigger peoplem now being able to afford everything and sadly most people can't

Cheers

[dubbleyew eight]

I service my dry vac pump myself. truly I do.

in 10 years it hasn't shown any wear at all.

I did get a guilty feeling once about servicing my vac pump and making a few new parts in it so I bought an unmodified yellow tagged one and put it on the aircraft.

it failed in exactly the same way as the first one. so I made the necessary replacement parts for that one as well. while I was doing this I put the original one back into service.

I love dry vac pumps. they are a nifty little device. with my periodic servicing my two dry vac pumps will most assuredly do me for the rest of my life.

....I know, not what you wanted to hear :E:E:E

[No Hoper]

Clinton,
Why do you say that CAR 41 doesn't require components to be maintained in accordance with OEM of aircraft or component. I see no ambiguity (2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

W8 has a novel method of getting around a simple maintenance task, by carrying out a complex dismantling, repair and reassembly of a carbon vaned pump.
WOuld this not be a higher risk factor of human error?
What does your MRO think of your maintenance, or are you certifying for maintenance done?

It is above my pay level to dwell on the moral and ethical issues of changing or not changing a Vac pump. To be released on an MR this component has to be maintained IAW OEM - no further corrospondence entered into.

[yr right]

….getting…sucked…back….into….vortex….of….pointless….circular ity …and Australian GA....aarrrggghh...

Schedule 5 is a maintenance schedule in terms of CAR 41. Indeed, it’s “the CASA maintenance schedule”.

That’s the point.

The perpetual confusion is about whether Schedule 5 mandates the replacement/overhaul of components at the times provided in the MMM. The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...




NO BUT THE COURTS DECIDE AND ALREADY HAVE YOU MUST DO IT .


Why should it be a lame make the decision an have to were the damage to his hers lic and job. Simple answer is the owner says no I don't wont it done and signs the log book to say that or you close the machine and push it out side and let someone else do it.


Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

For those who have not read this thread, I can assume they have been, in the past, mis-informed, but those that have now done so, are un-informed. (apologies to Mark Twain for bastardising his quote).


I concur with LeadSled and Creampuff. Perhaps their offerings should be heeded. Both are aware of my intimate knowledge of schedule 4, as it was then, and how something simple became so convoluted and subsequently mutated into something that nobody fully understands and drives normal people to despair.


And while this fire burns, Nero fiddles!

[Old Akro]

The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...

What interest would CASA have in being definitive?

[No Hoper]

Clinton,
You either have the English Comprehension of a dead ferret or are being purposely obtuse.
The CAR states emphatically that component maintenance is to be included.

[yr right]

Well at least I know what a ferret is pmsl

[Jabawocky]

To coin a famous former CASA Lawyer. The CAR says what it means and means what it says.

And a CAAP is just a magazine article.

If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal.

If in doubt refer above. The CAR says what it means and means what it says.

[yr right]

If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal


And who is left holding the bill ?


And why should that person have too ?


Because some owner dosnt wont it done, because they think it dose not have to our because they cant afford to or what ever reason, we will pass it on to maintenance org or lame she be right then.


Cheers

[yr right]

As it stands now even if you choose not to believe it you have to SB and life limited component's as per the M/M.


More and more shops are demanding this as they are forced to by CASA its not the shop its Casa and more importantly will be your insurance policy will be U/S if you don't but then you try and sue the shop but they have a signed letter stating your the owner and you didn't wont them done.


There is nothing wrong with sched 5. As ive said its a victim of its own success and now casa are bring it back into line it was fine when it was supported by the Aust ADs but now they gone or going.


So now you will have to run what the manufacturer wonted, you got away with it for how long now.


At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them. And an on condition engine MUST have its component o/h at there correct time as well as they are NOT on condition only the core of the engine is


Its time you all stepped up to the mark the time has come its not 1990 any more sorry


Cheers

[LeadSled]

At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them

Folks,
More urban myths.

During a previous period of controversy over AD/ENG/4, which was being stoutly opposed by a number of maintenance providers, ( all on SAFETY grounds, of course, what happens in the rest of the world will not work in Australia) on the basis that their English comprehension did not extend to understanding the difference between Manufacturer's RECOMMENDED TBO, and the somewhat shorter term, TBO, "recommended" being a very long word, there was considerable effort made to rope in the various insurers.

A well known national representative organisation approached ALL the then providers of Hangar Keepers policies, and quizzed them about placing limitations on policies re. releasing aircraft that had engines over Manufacturers RECOMMENDED TBO. ie: the insurance underwriter placing a limitation on a policyholder using AD/ENG/4 on behalf of a Registered Operator customer.

The short answer was NO!. They all said that CASA requirements (however expressed) had to be complied with, that was it. In fact, in this area, they were reluctant to place custom conditions on individual policies at the request of the buyer of the policy.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

Gee lead you must have a different shop to the rest off us.
One of the things is if they won't to release an engine on condition it is the lame that take the responsabity of that. I for one won't do it and there are a lot of lames that won't ethier. Next is that the word recommend via the court says you must. Casa will not give you a definitionon the word how ever. I have tried.

Cheers

[LeadSled]

yr right,

I just stick to the facts, it is as easy as that.

One of the things is if they ( who is they, underwriters??)won't to release an engine on condition

Prove it, show us an excerpt from a policy.

I don't think you even understand that it is the Registered Operator who is ultimately legally responsible for the completion of maintenance and the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, not a/the LAME.

There is no issue with the definition of "manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul", that is simple and plain English and is accepted by the courts.

A reasonably useful working policy in Australian aviation is:

"Believe nothing that you hear, and only half what you see"Tootle pip!!

PS: Do you understand that is is legally possible for an aircraft to be "signed out" without the involvement of an AME/LAME anywhere in the process?

[yr right]

An aircraft may be release by someone other than an LAME ONLY IF ALL THE CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN SIGNED ON INSPECTION. SO YES I DO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .
HOW EVER THAT PERSON MUST HOLD AN APPROVAL FROM CASA TO DO IT. HE OR SHE IS ONLY SIGNING TO SAY THAT THE PAPER WORK IS COMPETED AND HOLDS NO APPROVAL TO SIGN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORK SHEETS


Cheers

[LeadSled]

yr right,

Once again, as we have come to expect, you avoid the main issue.

Show us an example of where a Hangar Keepers (or similar) insurance policy limits the application of AD/ENG/4 and prohibits the policy holder's staff from signing out an aircraft if an engine is past Manufacturers Recommended TBO.

This nonsense is only an issue in Australia, I am mystified as to why engines in Australia are apparently so mush less reliable, compared to US/CA/NZ etc., that they must be limited to a figure that is a "recommendation", without regard to the service condition of the engine.

Is it substandard maintenance by CASA licensed LAMEs like yr right, and/or are the general run of Australian pilots unable to demonstrate adequate engine handling ability, so that maximum engine life is achieved.?

Tootle pip!!

[No Hoper]

Leadsled(GoldWing?) states with no show of evidence:
A well known national representative organisation approached ALL the then providers of Hangar Keepers policies, and quizzed them about placing limitations on policies re. releasing aircraft that had engines over Manufacturers RECOMMENDED TBO. ie: the insurance underwriter placing a limitation on a policyholder using AD/ENG/4 on behalf of a Registered Operator customer.Then demands of Your Right evidence that Insurers were driving the situationProve it, show us an excerpt from a policy.Having been involved in release to service of on condition piston engines when the AD was first issued, I can vouch for the veracity of Your Right's statement - the Hangar Liability Insurance would not have covered any maintenance that was against OEM recommendation.
Speaking of on condition maintenance, you do realise that this means to remove/repair BEFORE the item breaks down, not after?
So with this in mind, how do you anticipate the stoppage of a Vac pump?
This may be why the OEM recommends a time life.I am mystified as to why engines in Australia are apparently so mush less reliable, No need to be mystified Leadsled, As the Robinson Heli Instructer said, " to arrive at true hours multiply the MR hours by a factor of 1. something, except in Australia where use a factor of 3!"

Clinton. After some thought I can see your side of the argument reference CASA Schedule 5: CAR 41 (1) states The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule. CAR 42B states (1) Subject to subregulation (2), if:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft that is an aeroplane has elected to use the CASA
maintenance schedule for the aircraft’s maintenance; and (b) the election is in force; the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is the CASA maintenance schedule. Ergo that is the Maintenance program, PLUS what ever else is nominated on the LBS for that aircraft.

[yr right]

For the reasons touched on by perspective, maintainers and regulators have a direct interest in mandated time-life component replacement/overhaul. More money and simpler. (Not for the aircraft operator, of course. Ironically, that attitude is one of the reasons for the demise of the industry that pays them.)


MMM lets look at this statement.


maintainers and regulators have a direct interest in mandated time-life component replacement/overhaul.


Regelators how so ?
Maintainers as well I know how much time is cut of bills so well not really true


(Not for the aircraft operator, of course. Ironically, that attitude is one of the reasons for the demise of the industry that pays them.)


MMM here is another one.
Well the main reason of reliability is you change before it breaks, So lets say like yesterday. I change a starter gen out still had some brush life left may have done another 100 hours may not have. 9K to do the job. Now if it broke down. 1st a near 2 hour flight to get to it again. 10 or so un happy pax at around $1000 ea 2 may be 3 revenue flights lost plus cost of a flight out plus time lost in flying out in the work shop. Oh gee wiz should have left it on im guessing.




And lead at 5-30 do you realyy think im going to go look for an insurance policy to pls you when I already know the answer.
I bet your hose has no door handles hey on your doors. You made so many statements that arnt ttrue. I like the one that the owner is resonsabile for the maintenance he is only that to make sure its done and not for the work that is carried out, that's why I have to sign 50 times a day my sig and lic and date.
So its the lame you fool.




Cheers

[yr right]

The manufacture has zero control over the aircraft once its has been sold. really you can do what you like with it. So in that case they set a maintenance program , limited life components , srm sb msb etc etc etc to guild the maintenance of the aircraft though its life.
The aircraft can be any where on the planet they have zero control so its set to the lowest point.
An aircraft that is not being used will have more problems than on that is always being used.


Cheers

[LeadSled]

And lead at 5-30 do you realyy think im going to go look for an insurance policy to pls you when I already know the answer.yr right,
Once again, you cannot back up your assertions.
Can you explain why the same insurers as in Australia have no problems with engines on condition in NZ, if your claims are true, which they are not!!

You made so many statements that arnt ttrue. I like the one that the owner is resonsabile for the maintenance he is only that to make sure its done and not for the work that is carried out, that's why I have to sign 50 times a day my sig and lic and date.

Once again, you illustrate that you do not understand the relevant regulations, what you devoutly believe and what the law says are two quite different things.

Regelators how so ?Because CASA can be and is regularly sued, and just regurgitating airframe manufacturer's MM limitations does go some way to minimizing CASA potential liability, at great expense to the whole Australian GA aviation sector.

So with this in mind, how do you anticipate the stoppage of a Vac pump?
This may be why the OEM recommends a time life.no hoper,
RAPCO type dry vac. pumps are an interesting issue, and, as I hope you know, it is the airframe manufacturer's time lives that count, not the vac. pump OEM. There are differences (that I have seen) of up to 50% difference in the OEM and the TC MM figures.

Personally, where I have the choice, I never use a dry vac. pump.

As to the survey of underwriters, it was done by AOPA, the results were as I have posted, if you don't want to accept that, that's your choice. At the time, there were all sorts of scary stories about engines on condition, as happens every time some kind of change is mooted in Australian aviation.

Separate facts from urban myths.

As for your accusations that virtually all light aircraft log books are records of criminal fraud ( not just a civil aviation offense, such fraud is dealt with under the Crimes Act), I simply reject such accusations. And yes, I am well aware of some such behavior, mostly in the cattle mustering sector, but that is far from being the whole of the GA fleet.

The fact remains, that running engines on condition, regarded as completely unexceptional in most countries, causes a certain kind of Australian LAME to have fits of the vapours, and forecast the end of aviation as we know it, if any change is made --- particularly and kind of change that might effect his income stream.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I have no idea who "goldwing" is, but it certainly ain't me.

[No Hoper]

Leadsled,
At the time, there were all sorts of scary stories about engines on condition Only for those that hadn't been in the mustering industry.
Reference hangar owners liability insurance, I was advised by the insurance rep of the company's Hanger Insurance to have my own liability insurance should an accident occur involving an engine I had released on condition.

[LeadSled]

I was advised by the insurance rep of the company's Hanger Insurance to have my own liability insurance should an accident occur involving an engine I had released on condition. No Hoper,
That raises some interesting issues if you were an employee of the organisation holding the Hangar Keepers policy. Depending on the insurance rep., if I was told that I would be looking into the matter very carefully -- and keeping my pen in my pocket until I was 110% certain of the conditions of any applicable policy. Having said that, insurance reps and some brokers are notoriously illinformed about the policies they are selling. For my sins, I spend too much time with lawyers, much of whose income is derived from aviation insurance disputes.

A possibly analogous situation is rental aircraft where, in the event of an accident, the policy holder (school?) gets paid out, then the pilot is sued by the insurance company for the payout, because the policy does not have a no recourse clause, but it is a bit hard to see how that can be applied to an employee. If your status was as a contractor, that is a different can of worms.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

RAPCO type dry vac. pumps are an interesting issue, and, as I hope you know, it is the airframe manufacturer's time lives that count, not the vac. pump OEM. There are differences (that I have seen) of up to 50% difference in the OEM and the TC MM figures




The above statement once again is incorrect. A component may be run to its manufacture's recommendations out side of the airframe limits.


So lead you still not answered a quite simple question that ive been asking you.
Simple how many time have you released and signed an M/R. Our sign and released your own work at a service.


And by the way the regulator dose not set the times in chap 5 for life limited components its the manufacture so once again it has nothing to do with the regulator. If TCM wont and do give a longer service life to there engines it is excepted by the regulator. You also keep bringing in every other country well we are in Aust and it don't matter what they say.


And btw you are wrong about the insurance as well.


Cheers

[tnuc]

Wording taken from a hangar keepers policy document from "the larger" of the Australian underwriters.


MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ENDORSEMENT
This Policy does not cover loss or damage directly or indirectly caused or occasioned by failure to overhaul or replace a Unit in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations provided however that this exclusion shall not apply if the Time in Service of the Unit is authorised by the Statutory Requirements and does not exceed 125% of the Overhaul Life of that Unit.
In all other respects, the Policy remains unaltered.

[Avgas172]

I bet your hose has no door handles hey on your doors. You made so many statements that arnt ttrue. I like the one that the owner is resonsabile for the maintenance he is only that to make sure its done and not for the work that is carried out, that's why I have to sign 50 times a day my sig and lic and date.

Very busy millionaire you are yr right, I calculate that you then sign out your work ( after you thoroughly inspect it ) every 9.6 minutes of each 8 hour working day. As I have said previously I don't think I'll be having my work done by you anytime soon.

[yr right]

Avgas that's fine by me. Do you really think I would won't to work on your aircraft. It's also called have trust in your fellow work mates mmm some thing I trust that you don't have. I'll let my record speak for me what about you.
Cheers

[Avgas172]

Yr Right .... The LAW has nothing to do with trust.

[yr right]

Oh not you too going to lecture me on my reasonabilities as an lame. Nooooooooo please don't. I guess then EVERY work shop should be closed down. Or should anyone working on an aircraft all be lames or do we keep on doing what we doing.
Next thing is a how do you know what I look at when and where or how I can control multiple jobs. You see Avgas it's called experience

Cheers

[Avgas172]

Not at all Yr Right, but I wasn't the one mouthing off about how much I do in a day .... You are happy to call others in this forum fools, however who is the fool now.

[yr right]

Not me I'm no fool. As I said earlier I'm happy to stand behind my record are you.

[yr right]

And all I said is I sign up to 50 times a day so what you have said was taken out of contex. That's no different to most lames btw.

[Frank Arouet]

Get a rubber stamp mate, problem fixed. Wots next?

[yr right]

Strangely enough that can be used if it's in your procedures. Pmsl

[Avgas172]

I personally couldn't care less how you sign for the work carried out provided the thorough inspection you are signing for as the second inspection required is in fact carried out ..... is it? :confused:

[LeadSled]

The above statement once again is incorrect. A component may be run to its manufacture's recommendations out side of the airframe limits.


yr right,
I think you better check the "rules" and the court precedents for the correct answer.

And by the way the regulator dose not set the times in chap 5 for life limited components its the manufacture so once again it has nothing to do with the regulator. If TCM wont and do give a longer service life to there engines it is excepted by the regulator. You also keep bringing in every other country well we are in Aust and it don't matter what they say.

More random rubbish, as far as I can see, nobody on this thread has said that the regulator sets RECOMMENDED TBO.

However, CASA does set time lives, when manufacturers do not, one example is the Australian unique AD setting airframe lives, based on estimated fatigue lives.

As to how many return to service documents I have signed out, that is not relevant to the facts and the discussion here.

Despite your claims of competence, based on repetition, you have clearly illustrated some interesting gaps in your knowledge. This in addition to your apparent prejudices, which makes me wonder if you are actually capable of learning from experience.

A bit like the pilot who did not have a 1000 hours experience, he had 1 hour a thousand times. Your views on LOP engine operations are as good an example as any of your approach to aviation life.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

As for lop I stand by what I've seen over the years.
As for you signing anything it is relevant as it quite obvious that you have not signed anything but your so quick to tell us how we are to do our job yet you can't do it and we no nothing.
Oh so typical. Gee if I was so bad maybe my lic should have been taken by this but oh no it hasn't. To the point I've beaten casa in court on legal matters in regards to aviation maintenance. Have you.


Cheers