New control cable inspections.

[fujii]

https://www.casa.gov.au/media-release/new-approach-control-cable-replacement

[Lead Balloon]

Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years old will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?

My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.

[Band a Lot]

Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?

My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.



The old major was a bit of an over kill for cables but each 10 years would be an ok option.


Disconnect one end of the cable each 15 years and have a good look at the "hard to see" areas is not a bad idea.


Yep as a LAME it should/will be cheaper than replacement.

[Lead Balloon]

And how many cables do you reckon that could be, and having disconnected them, how much re-tensioning and re-rigging will be required and how long will that take.

How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.

[Band a Lot]

And how many cables do you reckon that could be, and having disconnected them, how much re-tensioning and re-rigging will be required and how long will that take.

How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.



I give quotes, I don't get them! the old major is your data point.


What aircraft type?

[Lead Balloon]

The old major was, demonstrably, expensive overkill.

Beech Baron.

[Lead Balloon]

While you're working on the quote for the annual cost of the alternative inspection regime in the proposed AD, versus outright cable replacement, for my Beech Baron, Band a Lot, I note for other readers that the AD itself shows why it's an overkill:Seven cases of terminal failures were reported in Australia in the six years preceding release of AD/GENERAL/87 with no fatalities recorded. CASA deemed industry practice at the time insufficient to reliably detect or manage the failure mode. Seven! Count them: Seven!

And the number of fatalities: Zero! Count them: Zero!

Pass me the smelling salts.

Naturally there is no statement or analysis of failure and fatality data from the USA - with orders of magnitude more aircraft that don't have calendar-based mandatory replacement for Part 91 aircraft cables. I know people in the USA who own aircraft with original stainless steel terminated cables that are over 40 years old.

CASA "deemed" industry practice to be insufficient. That means making true, by law, that which is untrue, in fact. So 'typically CASA'.

The truth is that a tiny minority of LAMEs have been certifying inspections of flight control systems without doing a proper inspection. That's not "insufficient". That's "malpractice". But as is so often the way in Australia, everyone pays for the lowest common denominator fringe dwellers.Conrad Waddington was assigned to Coastal Air Command during WW II and asked to find out why their B-24 Libertators had such a high rate of downtime. What he discovered was rather non-intuitive, to Engineers and mechanics.

The airplanes were by and large reliable, but after every 50 hours of flying time, they were scheduled for a series of routine maintenance procedures, designed to increase reliability of the aircraft. What Waddington discovered was that after these preventative maintenance procedures, the aircraft were actually less reliable for a while, as systems that were disturbed by the mechanics in maintenance required further maintenance to repair.

In other words, sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

And this advice goes against the thinking of most Engineers at the time, or indeed, even today. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis, we study which components in a system will fail, over a given time, and then try to replace those components prior to failure. For a nuclear ballistic missile system, for example, where reliability is paramount, such techniques are followed - with perfectly "good" components being swapped out and discarded, after a number of hours of operating time.

But the problem with this approach to maintenance, is that our old bugaboo, infant mortality, comes into play. There is always a finite chance that the new part you install will be defective, and as a result, you've removed a perfectly good part and discarded it, in favor of a bad one.

Compounding this is the finite and real probability that the process of maintenance itself will cause problems.

[currawong]

Perhaps the question should be asked -

Why are cables failing here when 40 year old cables in the US are not?

[Lead Balloon]

Stainless steel cable terminations are failing in the USA. It's just that the numbers and consequences are not considered sufficient to justify mandatory calendar-based replacement under the current Australia AD or the inspection regime in the proposed new Australian AD.

And there are 40 year old cables/stainless steel termination in Australia that have not failed.

It's estimated that there are 1.3 million cars in Australia that may have defective Takata airbags. There have been injuries and deaths caused by the defects. Have all of those cars been the subject of a mandatory inspection directive, with a failure in compliance being a criminal offence by the owner? Of course not. But in the good ol' world of aviation safety, around 1 failure a year with no fatalities justifies a criminally-sanctioned directive.

[Band a Lot]

Barron and Bonanza should have cables changed or make access to inspect them, in a time frame that is expected in a normal 100hly or annual.

They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.

I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.

[Lead Balloon]

You didn't provide the quote for the annual inspections in accordance with the proposed AD in comparison with replacement under the current AD.

I realise that money is no object when it comes to the safety of air navigation, but I reckon aircraft owners are entitled to know what option will cost less. Given that CASA "deems" either replacement or the proposed inspection regime to be "sufficient", it seems pretty pointless to waste money on the more expensive option.

You seem to be suggesting that replacement is cheaper. Which kinda makes my point that the fanfare around the proposed AD to supersede the current AD was a little premature.

It was just luck that two aircraft full of passengers didn't die in fog at Mildura. Yet - amazingly - no one's at fault and no rules got changed.

[Band a Lot]

Correct, I actually got to the point I will/would not quote on Barron's.

They actually cost us money to work on.

So my suggestion is an honest one, and change the aircraft not the cables.

About 10 years back they could sell at around $150,000 - 3 or 4 years back you could not sell one for $80,000 in good nick with reasonable times to run.

[gerry111]

Barron and Bonanza should have cables changed or make access to inspect them, in a time frame that is expected in a normal 100hly or annual.

They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.

I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.

Goodness! "a rubbish aircraft". That's really encouraging for some of us who choose to fly in Beechcraft aircraft. :(

[megle2]

Just a small point to enhance the discussion quality, Barron is spelt Baron

[Lead Balloon]

The "Barron's" to which Band a Lot referred are cheap imitations of Barons. You can pick them up at markets in Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, his bottom line is similar to the advice I've received from other LAMEs: The AD that CASA proposes to replace the current AD is out of the frying pan and into the fire for owners of aircraft with stainless steel terminated cables in excess of 15 years old. Regulatory overkill, either way.

[megle2]

Barron's from Hong Kong? I'll have to go back and reread the posts to see how they became part of the cables discussion.

[Lead Balloon]

The latest AOPA magazine features an interview with the new CEO of CASA. One of the questions asked, at page 21, is prefaced with the statement: "CASA recently rescinded the control cable AD ...."

Does anyone have any link or reference to any piece of paper that rescinds the control cable AD?

[tpng conehead]

Go to CASA AD's PAD/GENERAL/87 Amdt 1

[Lead Balloon]

If you read through this thread, you will see that I am aware that CASA is proposing to amend the AD. That ain't rescinding it.

[Connedrod]

Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years old will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?

My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.


Perhaps its more like you cant afford to maintain your aircraft and you should sell it and leave flying and take up fishing. Aviation has always worked in a proactive way and not in a reactive way as your industry dose.
A fault has been identified and so a rectication inspection has been implemented. So now we have this problem of instant expert makeing nonsense coments. I bet you dont believe in childhood vacation as well

[Lead Balloon]

Although you can't read, Steve, others can.[T]he problem with this approach to maintenance, is that ... infant mortality .... comes into play. There is always a finite chance that the new part you install will be defective, and as a result, you've removed a perfectly good part and discarded it, in favor of a bad one.

Compounding this is the finite and real probability that the process of maintenance itself will cause problems.Another weird quirk of aviation is that manufacturers and maintainers pretend they are perfect and nothing they produce and none of the work they do is defective.

When I give it away and go fishing, that will be another lost job in the GA maintenance industry.

Anyway, I'm still trying to solve the mystery of the statement that "CASA recently rescinded the control cable AD" in the AOPA magazine interview with the new CEO of CASA.

Is that statement just a case of AOPA and the CEO of CASA being clueless about what's happening in the real world?

[Eddie Dean]

Perhaps its more like you cant afford to maintain your aircraft and you should sell it and leave flying and take up fishing.Probably a correct summation of the issue for a lot of owner/operators.

[Lead Balloon]

I see.

So if an individual in CASA with subjective opinions about the extent of a risk and how to mitigate that risk decides to issue an AD imposing that subjective opinion and consequent costs on aircraft owners, on pain of criminal conviction, despite the NAA responsible for the largest GA fleet on the planet not having done the same, aircraft owners should just STFU and pay.

If the proposed amendments to the AD come into effect, something that would have been criminally dangerous on 1 January 2018 will magically become acceptably safe until 1 September 2018, on which date it will magically become criminally dangerous. And aircraft owners should just STFU and not point out the nonsense.

Compliance with the inspection procedures in the proposed amended AD are more expensive than the current mandated replacement for many aircraft, and aircraft owners should thank CASA for its wonderful beneficence in proposing the amendment.

Meanwhile, on whatever planet AOPA and the CEO of CASA happen to be dwelling at the moment, the AD has been "rescinded". I suppose aircraft owners should just shrug and laugh it off as the usual dumb and dumber farce.

If the government issued a 'roadworthiness directive' requiring car owners to have the car's airbags inspected and replaced, at the owner's expense and on pain of criminal conviction, there would be riots until the government was tossed out on its ear. The different treatment of aircraft owners is about politics - plain and simple politics - not safety, but aircraft owners should just STFU and pay.

:ugh:

[Eddie Dean]

Compliance with the inspection procedures in the proposed amended AD are more expensive than the current mandated replacement for many aircraft, and aircraft owners should thank CASA for its wonderful beneficence in proposing the amendment.Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Could you also use words of one syllable, or less, so the uneducated mechanics, like connedron and me, can grasp the benefit of your superior education and knowledge.

[Lead Balloon]

I will try words of one sill a bull:

Try ree ding this thread.

My lay me told me that the in speck shuns ree quired by the pro posed new AD will be more ex pen sive than ree play sing the cabe ells on my air craft.

[Eddie Dean]

I will try words of one sill a bull:

Try ree ding this thread.

My lay me told me that the in speck shuns ree quired by the pro posed new AD will be more ex pen sive than ree play sing the cabe ells on my air craft.I have read the thread, other than statements that it will cost more, there is no supporting evidence. You have no convincing argument that inspecting my TU206G cables will cost more than replacing them. Over to you

[Propstop]

You will find that to inspect the cables properly (internal corrosion etc) please read AC43.13-1b Par 7-149 page 7-328 figure 7-16. Cable inspection technique
To do this inspection properly the cables must be partially removed so the full length of the cable can be inspected. This is time consuming and therefore expensive. It is basically the same cost of replacing the cables in total and having peace of mind for the next 15 years.
Of course if you find a LAME who will do a flick and tick it will initially be far cheaper, but at what cost??????

[Eddie Dean]

You will find that to inspect the cables properly (internal corrosion etc) please read AC43.13-1b Par 7-149 page 7-328 figure 7-16. Cable inspection technique
To do this inspection properly the cables must be partially removed so the full length of the cable can be inspected. This is time consuming and therefore expensive. It is basically the same cost of replacing the cables in total and having peace of mind for the next 15 years.
Of course if you find a LAME who will do a flick and tick it will initially be far cheaper, but at what cost??????Thank you for the input mate, but I think we are misunderstanding why the cable replacement was mandated. It was not for the cables themselves, but for the stainless steel end fittings.:

Inspection of primary flight control cable terminals can be difficult and problematic. Surface indication of stress corrosion cracking, such as corrosion pitting or cracking can be very difficult to see, even under 10X magnification and can sometimes emanate from within the sleeve of the terminal.

The cost of the cables is going to be about $3500.00 plus GST, so am still waiting for Plumbum Vesica to answer.

[Band a Lot]

Beechcraft Barron or Baron 55, 58 or even the G58 are rubbish to work on or maintain - take the cowls of a new $1M+ baron with out a scratch.

At around the B200 they became quite good, and have never needed to change a cable other than the door cables on some.

To carry out a CASA sched 5 on a Baron that a owner will think is only a minor rip off by the Maint Org requires a lot of tick and flick due lack of acces and surplus of screws.

IMO a CASA Shed 5 inspection on a B58 should be a min of 60hrs (no defects) for a CAR 30 and a largish Part 145 more like 85hrs with no tick and flicks.

[Band a Lot]

Thank you for the input mate, but I think we are misunderstanding why the cable replacement was mandated. It was not for the cables themselves, but for the stainless steel end fittings.:

Inspection of primary flight control cable terminals can be difficult and problematic. Surface indication of stress corrosion cracking, such as corrosion pitting or cracking can be very difficult to see, even under 10X magnification and can sometimes emanate from within the sleeve of the terminal.

The cost of the cables is going to be about $3500.00 plus GST, so am still waiting for Plumbum Vesica to answer.



Is that just cables for C206? or fitment too.

[Eddie Dean]

Is that just cables for C206? or fitment too.Just the cables mate, I was going to bang them in myself.

Beechcraft Barron or Baron 55, 58 or even the G58 are rubbish to work on or maintainTwo fvcken days to fit and rig the rudder, piece of sh1t. And don't start me on the undercarriage rigging, tension varies with voltage, make sure you have 27.5 volts exactly on the APU.

[Band a Lot]

$3500 seems very steep normally get for $120- $180 a cable, but that was a couple years back.

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Why not just change the elevator or stabilator cables. Certainly would ruin your day if that one let's go??

[gerry111]

Perhaps its more like you cant afford to maintain your aircraft and you should sell it and leave flying and take up fishing.

I've heard a rumour that in 2000, Lead Balloon and a mate flew to Cooktown to celebrate NOCOG, which was a send up of SOCOG. (That was the Sydney organising committee for the 2000 Olympic games.) En-route, they apparently visited Karumba and went on a half day fishing trip with others. (The fishing was quite easy if one could haul in before the sharks took them.) Sadly, Lead Balloon was upstaged by his mate who caught something massive and then instantly retired from fishing.

I'd suggest that Lead Balloon stick to flying GA as I've heard that he's far more competent at it than fishing.. :ok:

P.S. I've also heard that Lead Balloon wasn't flying one of those "rubbish" Beechcraft aircraft on that trip.

[Connedrod]

The trouble is people are capable of useing large words and complex arguments have little if any common sence and even less hand skills and then the poeple with little understanding of large words or complex arguments but with common sence and hand skills end up before people that can understand large words and complex arguments that had no common sence to take the advice of the people that said to DO it.

I always found it funny that engineers dont think they pilots but pilots think they engineering experts. But then again what would i know.

[Connedrod]

I've heard a rumour that in 2000, Lead Balloon and a mate flew to Cooktown to celebrate NOCOG, which was a send up of SOCOG. (That was the Sydney organising committee for the 2000 Olympic games.) En-route, they apparently visited Karumba and went on a half day fishing trip with others. (The fishing was quite easy if one could haul in before the sharks took them.) Sadly, Lead Balloon was upstaged by his mate who caught something massive and then instantly retired from
I'd suggest that Lead Balloon stick to flying GA as I've heard that he's far more competent at it than fishing.. :ok:

P.S. I've also heard that Lead Balloon wasn't flying one of those "rubbish" Beechcraft aircraft on that trip.



Oh wasnt shark bait, bugger professional courtesy !

[Eddie Dean]

$3500 seems very steep normally get for $120- $180 a cable, but that was a couple years back.
You are correct, had a couple of other items on the Aviall quote.
Closer to 2500$

[Eddie Dean]

Oh wasnt shark bait, bugger professional courtesy !That is funny on several levels.
Reference your comment on dealing with over educated people in industry, they have always been a problem and have yet to work out a way to deal with them, other than using the good old Aussie smack in the chops.

[Connedrod]

This just shows the state that lames face daily. An Ad is a MUST DO inspection. Thanks to aopa we now face with manufacturers on a lot of inspections which are open for interpretation. Do i dont i from the owner.
The hose AD is a could case in point.
Try and read 100.5. This was covered from basic ADs. Now is just a mess

[Band a Lot]

I heard a rumour last week that SID's were not required on a 400 series aircraft that is in Private category.


Now unless there has been a new document released from CASA in the last year - that's some interesting interpretation going on!

[Connedrod]

I heard a rumour last week that SID's were not required on a 400 series aircraft that is in Private category.


Now unless there has been a new document released from CASA in the last year - that's some interesting interpretation going on!

Not heard that. You be brave not to do some of the sids on them with whats been found ove the year

[Lead Balloon]

It is perfectly reasonable for aircraft owners to object to wasting money on unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance.

I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.

I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.

I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.

At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.

Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?

Nope.

Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?

Of course not.

Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?

Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.

The data are irrelevant.

It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.

Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time. :ok:

[Eddie Dean]

It is perfectly reasonable for aircraft owners to object to wasting money on unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance.

I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.

I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.

I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.

At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.

Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?

Nope.

Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?

Of course not.

Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?

Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.

The data are irrelevant.

It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.

Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time. :ok:
Yr Right old mate, I lay awake at night, trembling in anticipation of removing three thousand access panels and squeezing into impossible positions to inspect control runs.
I can see from your postings that you have deep unresolved issues with mechanics, were you backdoored by one perhaps?
I'm at Mareeba Airport for a few days, drop past and we can have a gentlemanly discussion about maintenance matters.
Too old to fight, too fvcked to run, that only leaves one option. 👍

[Lead Balloon]

I spent many years up to my elbows in aircraft access panels, usually wishing I had triple jointed wrists and double-jointed fingers. I still enjoy doing aircraft maintenance, although I don't get paid to do it these days.

I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.

[Connedrod]

I spent many years up to my elbows in aircraft access panels, usually wishing I had triple jointed wrists and double-jointed fingers. I still enjoy doing aircraft maintenance, although I don't get paid to do it these days.

I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.

Really ! So how many cables did you examine and sign off on ?

[Lead Balloon]

"Examine"? I did and do "inspections".

"Sign off on"? I did and do "certifications".

You trolls need to do a bit more homework.

[Connedrod]

"Examine"? I did and do "inspections".

"Sign off on"? I did and do "certifications".

You trolls need to do a bit more homework.

Are you surgesting im a troll. Really are you. What because i give honest and trustworthy opions. Vold of lies and miss trust.
Please tell me how you certified for completion of work ?

[Band a Lot]

It is perfectly reasonable for aircraft owners to object to wasting money on unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance.
:ok:



Can I simply ask what is the approved and documented procedure to determine "unnecessary" and "potentially counter productive" maintenance?


I do agree that these forms of maintenance exist - but in what documented and legal way do aircraft owners determine this?


In my life time aircraft owners consider the fuel tanks 1/2 full - when in fact they were 1/2 empty (and in old and new craft running out of gas happens way to often)

We use to use marine cables for engine controls - we had to test them prior fitment it was a simple lever and weight thru full movement.

[Connedrod]

Can I simply ask what is the approved and documented procedure to determine "unnecessary" and "potentially counter productive" maintenance?


I do agree that these forms of maintenance exist - but in what documented and legal way do aircraft owners determine this?


In my life time aircraft owners consider the fuel tanks 1/2 full - when in fact they were 1/2 empty (and in old and new craft running out of gas happens way to often)

We use to use marine cables for engine controls - we had to test them prior fitment it was a simple lever and weight thru full movement.

Engines whilst they may look the same on the outside. The material that is now used is better alloy and better controled. And yes whislt there are problems and there always will be. By and large they are ultra reliable and with correct maintenance and operation they generally dont give much problems. If you buy a cheap overhaul and dont change out certain components that may not be listed as mandatory what do you think you are going to get. Same as plugs and mags. But ask the expert he knows all hey leadie dont be buying anything from cmi

[Band a Lot]

I never use Tempest filters nor plugs both cost labour time over all, I never use to use Slick Mags, but now think over 1 engine life the are far better.

I would buy a new or reman to get the extra life on a Conny as an operator (12 year should be flexi) Lycos have some great and a few not great models (as TCM).

But to run a Bar(r)on on a run/s I would not look at the new model Baron - but a very light jet and check the numbers on that.

[Connedrod]

Only problem with jets is cost. Not so much outright cost of purchase but parts. I change two small solid bearings. Inner 745 and outer 755 that 3k witn out fittng labour. 1/2inch dia and 1/2 long plus the product support is just not t here as they dont wont them flying. There better aircraft to buy instead of a new barrrrrron. Nice to fly but a dog to work on

[Lead Balloon]

Can you get back on your medication so that you aren't conversing with yourself in jibberish?

You asked me "how many cables did you examine and sign off on"? A few. And, unlike you, my life depended (and continues to depend) on the inspections I did and certified.

Get someone to read you (and if necessary translate into your jibberish) CAR 1988 42G. It's about flight control system inspections - you know, those aircraft bits that occasionally include cables with terminations and tension and lock wire and proper routing that can affect whether minor components like ailerons and elevators and rudders work in the correct sense. Get them to read you the definition of "inspection" for the purposes of that regulation, and who is an appropriate person to do independent "inspections".

CAR 42G isn't there because you're perfect. It's there because you fcuk up. You're human.

The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles. Waddington did that analysis. So have others with a similar capacity as Waddington's to be objective.

I realise that those Bibles provide you with much-needed certainty in a world that you find vary scary, but just as Jonah didn't live in whale, some of those time-based manufacturer and regulator mandated maintenance requirements are faith-based, not evidence-based.

[Band a Lot]

The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles


Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?

[Connedrod]

The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles


Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?

He dosent have to. He is god almighty. He is above reproach.
He also was part of the system before he was removed. Maybe its more about tnat than more than his expert knowledge that he trys to impose on the weak minded.
He also needs to look at what a secondry inspection is.
This is not certified on the inspection of the control cable its self which is what i asked. So in fact he has not certified for sfa.

[Lead Balloon]

At what point, Band? This may be an alarming concept:

The point at which maintenance becomes unnecessary and potentially counterproductive is the point at which the cost paid - both in money and lives - for doing the maintenance is higher than not doing it.

I realise this a concept alien to aviation, where any perceived risk must be mitigated at any cost, even if the mitigation costs more than than the risk mitigated. In aviation, that's called "safety".

How and when do you document this? Another alarming concept: The objective risks and benefits and costs of doing a maintenance task, compared with the objective risks and benefits and costs of not doing that task, are the same, whether or not it's "documented".

Take comfort, however. When the last GA maintenance organisation closes its doors because too many aircraft owners decided that paying money to throw serviceable cables in the bin in return for risk is a fckuing stupid thing to do, we will all be able to get a warm inner glow from being "safe".

[gerry111]

I spent many years up to my elbows in aircraft access panels, usually wishing I had triple jointed wrists and double-jointed fingers. I still enjoy doing aircraft maintenance, although I don't get paid to do it these days.

Bloody 'ell, Lead Balloon! That sounds like the skills that were required to remove and refit a Doppler base plate on a RAAF Mirage 1110.. :8

[Eddie Dean]

Get someone to read you (and if necessary translate into your jibberish) CAR 1988 42G. It's about flight control system inspections - you know, those aircraft bits that occasionally include cables with terminations and tension and lock wire and proper routing that can affect whether minor components like ailerons and elevators and rudders work in the correct sense. Get them to read you the definition of "inspection" for the purposes of that regulation, and who is an appropriate person to do independent "inspections". Whilst you are correct that an appropriate licenced pilot is approved to carry out an "inspection" pursuant to CAR 42G, most CAR30 and Part 145 workshops have an SOP that only a licenced mechanic may inspect and certify for the aforementioned "inspection".

Kudos to you, as you would be one of the few pilots I know that fully understands the importance of a CAR 42G inspection. When I have used a pilot in the field for the same, it is usual to have to tell them exactly what to do, which undermines the integrity of CAR 42G.

I feel you are exaggerating the extent of your responsibilities under 42G, as this does not include the close inspection of the cables and endfittings, it is only for "fit, form and function". Over to you.

[Connedrod]

Whilst you are correct that an appropriate licenced pilot is approved to carry out an "inspection" pursuant to CAR 42G, most CAR30 and Part 145 workshops have an SOP that only a licenced mechanic may inspect and certify for the aforementioned "inspection".

Kudos to you, as you would be one of the few pilots I know that fully understands the importance of a CAR 42G inspection. When I have used a pilot in the field for the same, it is usual to have to tell them exactly what to do, which undermines the integrity of CAR 42G.

I feel you are exaggerating the extent of your responsibilities under 42G, as this does not include the close inspection of the cables and endfittings, it is only for "fit, form and function". Over to you.

Im sure a bus driver cant do dauls in a part 145 org. I know the 145 that i worked in they couldnt. If you have a minning oil contract thet cant ethier. But now an engineering lic holder can do a 2ND inspection

[Band a Lot]

We know a few years ago in a couple of Beech aircraft in Australia a primary flight control cable broke - it may have been 2 I don't remember.

But a few others were inspected and found a bit not good.


Now I wonder what steps the "safe operators" have taken to determine the serviceability of their aircrafts flight control cables.

I will put forward (and with a case of beer) that Leady did absolutely nothing other that what CASA mandated at that time - then once that was cancelled still had no plan to do anything other than the minimum mandated (even thou we know that let cables fail in Beech).

Operators if pilots generally will have Leady's view that any maintenance than changing oil is excessive maintenance. But get them to agree a pilot should get rostered for 2,000 hour per year and fatigue pops up fast but the LAME on 24/7 call.

Personally I think the wing bolt inspections on Barons is a waste of time and money - never found a fault ever, so why remove, replace or inspect every 5 years. That can lead to maintenance errors - just leave them in there!

That's my cost/safety bit done, if a wing bolt/s fails it will be worth it in the long run!

[Connedrod]

Never found a crack bolt but have found damage and corroded bath tub fittings which have required changing in beech wing spars . If you look at your beach manual chap 5 time limits. It states intinal requirements for component change and then states after that ypu may make your own times depending on what you find. B200 damage their cables at the aft fuse area. Once again leadie seams to rhink he is god and blames casa and manufacturers for looking after the simple folk.
Then you relize that casa is now full of ex military bring all the 6 poeple to look into a pannel before you put it back on type inspections. They hzve no idea about civilian aviation and now idea about sfa. Funny leadie ex mill and so is gerry. Get the piture yet !

[Band a Lot]

Never found a crack bolt but have found damage and corroded bath tub fittings which have required changing in beech wing spars . If you look at your beach manual chap 5 time limits. It states intinal requirements for component change and then states after that ypu may make your own times depending on what you find. B200 damage their cables at the aft fuse area. Once again leadie seams to rhink he is god and blames casa and manufacturers for looking after the simple folk.
Then you relize that casa is now full of ex military bring all the 6 poeple to look into a pannel before you put it back on type inspections. They hzve no idea about civilian aviation and now idea about sfa. Funny leadie ex mill and so is gerry. Get the piture yet !

FAA also state a experienced Mech is better than the Manual! but not legal in Australia to use that LAME experience, so while I don't recall reading that in chapter 5 - it was not permitted at my local CASA zone to be "flexible" on the 5 year unless I made the bolts and had my own approval for that.

[gerry111]

Then you relize that casa is now full of ex military bring all the 6 poeple to look into a pannel before you put it back on type inspections. They hzve no idea about civilian aviation and now idea about sfa. Funny leadie ex mill and so is gerry. Get the piture yet !

I'm ex-RAAF and quite proud of that feat. (What were RAAF recruiting thinking?)

I've never met anyone who admits to being Lead Balloon. (I suspect that if I'd worked with him/her, I would have always hated him/her.)

[Band a Lot]

I'm ex-RAAF and quite proud of that feat. (What were RAAF recruiting thinking?)

I've never met anyone who admits to being Lead Balloon. (I suspect that if I'd worked with him/her, I would have always hated him/her.)



EX RAAF generally leads to 2 things competent or not but with the same tickets! so needs to be worked out.


Willing or not to learn non RAAF stuff and be productive in a commercial environment.

[Connedrod]

I'm ex-RAAF and quite proud of that feat. (What were RAAF recruiting thinking?)

I've never met anyone who admits to being Lead Balloon. (I suspect that if I'd worked with him/her, I would have always hated him/her.)

You should learn or remember your own replys. Yes we know your ex raaf. You not replied to my pm after you thought you found out my location. What you think i would have given you that straight up. Drrrrrrrrrr. Shows how untrustworthy you must be ?


As for the manual its legal to do it if you can show what was found. Casa cant go against what the manual states. Only if they bring an AD in to go against it. Other wise the manuals not worth the $20k a year we have to pay to keep them updated.

[Band a Lot]

As for the manual its legal to do it if you can show what was found. Casa cant go against what the manual states. Only if they bring an AD in to go against it.


Yes they can, they can do as they wish, and then get it somehow supported by that doggey legal team.

Have you got the cash to fight them is the correct statement.

[Connedrod]

Cant go agaisnt
Done iaw mm chapter 5

Clearly states what you can do . Unless an AD states something different or the lbs states something different its legal.

[Band a Lot]

I have in an email from a "team leader" from CASA saying that

Not to follow the REGS on the IAW stuff - do it here (against the regs) CASA accepts this as a standard practice.

[Eddie Dean]

I have in an email from a "team leader" from CASA saying that

Not to follow the REGS on the IAW stuff - do it here (against the regs) CASA accepts this as a standard practice.I am not sure about this. A certification of rectification, in my understanding, has to state reference, values attained etc.
Using cable replacement as our maintenance required you would need to state "replaced IAW manual and chapter, rigging check carried out IAW manual and chapter, degrees of deflection (if applicable) attained, serial number of special tooling used and reference to the CAR 42G inspection. "

[Band a Lot]

But that is not what the REG's say or require!

And what certification? final as in generally a logbook?

[Band a Lot]

What must be included in a final certification?
4.4 If certifications for completion of stages of maintenance are made in the documents kept by the person carrying out the maintenance as a record of the carrying out of the maintenance, a final certification must:

**Ok so this is keeping the worksheets for required time and doing a logbookentry!

(a) include a brief description of the type of maintenance carried out;and
* All primary flight cables replaced with new.

(b) be signed by the person making the certification; and
*sign your name.

(c) include the licence number, airworthiness authority number orcertificate of approval number of the person making the certification; and
* 123456

(d) set out the time in service of the aircraft since new; and
*523 TTIS

(e) if the person making the certification is an employee--state the nameof the person's employer and the employer's certificate of approval number,licence number or airworthiness authority number; and
*if applicable

(f) set out details of the approved maintenance data used to carry outthe maintenance; and
* Manufactures of aircraft data

(g) if an exemption from or variation to a requirement is in force under regulation 42ZS (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s42zs.html)in relation to the aircraft--set out details of the exemption or variation; and
*if applicable

(h) if, in the course of carrying out the maintenance, the weight orbalance of the aircraft has been varied--include a record of the variation; and

* Not applicable
(j) if a special inspection was carried out--set out what was found as aresult of the inspection; and

* Not applicable
(k) if, in the course of carrying out the maintenance, an inspectionusing a non-destructive testing method was carried out--set out:

*Not applicable
(i) the non-destructive testing method used in carrying out the inspection;and
(ii) the procedure used in carrying out the inspection; and
(iii) what was found as a result of the inspection; and

(l) include a list of airworthiness directives complied with in thecourse of carrying out the maintenance and a statement setting out any defectsfound in complying with those directives; and
* Not applicable if a separate entry was made for AD/GEN/87 has been made forthe removal.

(m) if, in the course of carrying out the maintenance, an aircraft component:
*Not applicable

(i) that has had maintenance carried out on it; and
(ii) that was supplied to the person carrying out the maintenance byanother person;
was fitted--set out the number of the document that covered the supply of thecomponent in accordance with subregulation 42W(4); and

(n) if, in the course of carrying out the maintenance, a time-lifedaircraft component was fitted or replaced:
(i) identify the component and that includes (if applicable) the partnumber and serial number of the component; and

* If classed as a component and not a part** They are now lifed so a P/N willbe required - dont recall them having a S/N.
(ii) list the airworthiness directives that have been complied with inrelation to the component; and

*Not applicable
(iii) if the component was supplied to the person carrying out themaintenance by another person--set out the number of the document that coveredthe supply of the component in accordance with subregulation 42W(4); and
(iv) if the component has not been overhauled--set out the time inservice of, or the number of cycles completed by, the component since new; and
(v) if the component has been overhauled--set out the time in service of,or number of cycles completed by, the component since its most recent overhaul;and
(vi) if the component is an engine--set out the test performance figuresof the engine; and
(p) if, in the course of carrying out the maintenance, an aircraftmaterial:
(i) that has had maintenance carried out on it; and
(ii) that was supplied to the person by another person; and
(iii) that is not a fluid;
was used--set out the number of the document that covered the supply of thematerial in accordance with subregulation 42X(1); and

* a GRN number
(q) identify the documents kept by the person carrying out themaintenance as a record of the carrying out of the maintenance; and

* Often a job number
(s) include the date on which the certification was made.

*15/8/17

[Band a Lot]

CAR 42G is a separate inspection (maintenance task) that needs to be certified for in the same way as applicable.

This bit will need to be changed:-


(f) set out details of the approved maintenance data used to carry out the maintenance; and
* Manufactures of aircraft data

TO


(f) set out details of the approved maintenance data used to carry out the maintenance; and
* I.A.W CASA instructions.

[Lead Balloon]

At the risk of interrupting consenting adults enjoying their circle-jerk, has anyone heard any rumours as to the date by which CASA will make a decision whether to issue the proposed amended AD?

[Band a Lot]

Leady history shows these are last minute and even post date announcements.

So with that we can expect announcement last week of December 2017 or 2nd week of Jan 2018.

Given many will have already changed the cables, again a PPE from the regulator.

[Lead Balloon]

The amended AD has now been issued, effective 1 November 2017: http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/AIRGEN/GEN/GEN-087.pdf

As a result, that which would have been dangerously criminal on 1 January 2018 doesn’t become dangerously criminal until 1 November 2018. That provides an additional 11 months for the various GA representative bodies to get their **** in one pile to get the AD repealed.

[fujii]

Annual done this week. Cables all good. Back in the air.

[Lead Balloon]

Which was precisely what happened with the cables whose terminations failed, thus ‘justifying’ the AD. Signed off as “cables all good”. Back in the air!

From 1 November 2018 it will be even ‘better’: Cables signed off as: “all good”. Bill to aircraft owner: “much bigger”. Safety: “reduced”.

Brilliant!