FAA Maintenance for General Aviation - beware the trap

[Horatio Leafblower]

CASA is spruiking their new ideas for GA maintenance (https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/info-session-proposed-new-maintenance-regulations-for-general-aviation-sydney-tickets-52929883707?utm_content=HTML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=phplist1674&utm_campaign=Information+sessions+-+proposed+new+maintenance+regulations+for+general+aviation+% 5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D) - about implementing FAA Maintenance regs for GA.

Beware... in CASA's General Aviation doesn't mean what you thought it meant!Public consultation on our proposal to develop new general aviation (GA) maintenance regulations modelled on those in the United States will open on 7 December 2018.The proposed maintenance regulations for GA seek to meet an overarching objective of streamlining maintenance requirements, minimising regulatory burden and reducing costs while maintaining the high aviation standards expected by all Australians.To raise awareness of the proposed new regulations CASA is conducting a series of information sessions across Australia during the week commencing 10-14 December 2018. The sessions will provide aircraft owner/operators and maintenance organisations operating in the GA sector with a better understanding of the proposed new maintenance regulations.You will hear the latest on the proposed policy from our experts and have an opportunity to ask questions about what the changes mean for you. Spread the word and encourage your aviation colleagues to be part of the conversation and register today.

Registrations close 5 December 2018.

Doesn't this sound refreshing:
"....an objective of streamlining maintenance requirements, minimising regulatory burden and reducing costs while maintaining the high aviation standards expected by all Australians."

CASA's Deputy DAS, Grahame Crawford, has re-defined General Aviation to exclude all GA passenger carrying operations, meaning that Charter Operators (soon to be Part 135 Air Transport) ARE EXCLUDED FROM GENERAL AVIATION.

Grahame Crawford, according to his LinkedIn Profile, has been a Turbofan engineer in Scotland, then for GE, Rolls Royce, and QANTAS management amongst other roles. If someone can explain to me how he is qualified to decide what is and what isn't General Aviation, please go ahead.

[LeadSled]

Grahame Crawford, according to his LinkedIn Profile, has been a Turbofan engineer in Scotland, then for GE, Rolls Royce, and QANTAS management amongst other roles. If someone can explain to me how he is qualified to decide what is and what isn't General Aviation, please go ahead.

Folks,
Put another way, he has nil regulatory background, and nil experience of any kind outside of engineering for HCRPT ---- and, I would guess about as much knowledge of FAA continuing airworthiness practices (outside of big engines) as most of the CASA airworthiness crowd, functionally nil.
The one thing that the Australian "one size fits all" process based approach can't get it collective mind around ( and this include many in the "industry") is that FAA takes a graduated approach to producing an airworthy aeroplane, the simplest being for Part 91 operations, ramping up through Part 135, to finally Part 121.
That is why the SIDS has not been the issue in US (and many other countries) that it has been in Australia.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Yes, if it turns out half as well as Part 61, we’ll all be laughing:cool:


Folks,
I thought everybody understood (like the "man in the street) that air safety is directly proportional to the volume of regulation.

Thus, an Australian pilot, thanks to Part 61/141/142, is clearly the world's safest, based on the number of pages of Regulation, number of pages of Manuals of Standards, number of pages of explanations of the Regulations and Manuals of Standards, number of pages of CASA "policy documents" explaining the interpretations of Regulations, Manuals of Standards, and Explanatory documents, and the documents clarifying the policy documents explaining the Regulations, Manuals of Standards, Interpretations, policy and clarification.

An additional benefit, applauded by the Greens, is the resultant collapse of GA, cutting carbon emissions ( you know, that stuff, on which almost all life on earth depends) all helping to contribute to the "Paris" agreement, which is being ignored by US, China and India.

As well as the Lucky Country, we are truly the Smart Country.

Tootle pip!!

[machtuk]

Folks,
I thought everybody understood (like the "man in the street) that air safety is directly proportional to the volume of regulation.

Thus, an Australian pilot, thanks to Part 61/141/142, is clearly the world's safest, based on the number of pages of Regulation, number of pages of Manuals of Standards, number of pages of explanations of the Regulations and Manuals of Standards, number of pages of CASA "policy documents" explaining the interpretations of Regulations, Manuals of Standards, and Explanatory documents, and the documents clarifying the policy documents explaining the Regulations, Manuals of Standards, Interpretations, policy and clarification.

An additional benefit, applauded by the Greens, is the resultant collapse of GA, cutting carbon emissions ( you know, that stuff, on which almost all life on earth depends) all helping to contribute to the "Paris" agreement, which is being ignored by US, China and India.

As well as the Lucky Country, we are truly the Smart Country.

Tootle pip!!

Well said 'Leady', ya gotta admit though the circus that is CASA is entertaining? Imagine a flying community without CASA? These pages would be empty, nothing to laugh or cry about!

[aroa]

Wow, just imagine aviation unencumbered by CAsA...!! I wish... but its a wet dream to think that will ever happen...those that hold the power will make sure of that.
What would happen if CAsA took a couple of years off? Nothing really.
Folk and a commonsense flying life would just be able to get on with it as normal.....and I would bet the accident rate would be no different.
So all the millions spent on drowning the industry in bumpf is a WOFTAM ..more regs doesnt mean more safer.

The blog would continue ...just with more positive things to talk about...eg the benefits of more freedoms.

[LeadSled]

Wow, just imagine aviation unencumbered by CAsA...!! I wish... but its a wet dream to think that will ever happen...those that hold the power will make sure of that.
What would happen if CAsA took a couple of years off? Nothing really.
Folk and a commonsense flying life would just be able to get on with it as normal.....and I would bet the accident rate would be no different.
So all the millions spent on drowning the industry in bumpf is a WOFTAM ..more regs doesnt mean more safer.

The blog would continue ...just with more positive things to talk about...eg the benefits of more freedoms.

Folks,
A very well known aviator recently described bureaucracy as: " The barbed wire around the axle of progress".
Does that resonate re. the CASA bureaucracy??
Tootle pip!!

[Eddie Dean]

I am sure that FAA regs for lower level maintenance was/is what Ppruners were/are advocating for.
The educated here must know that it was the federal government that demanded that all fare paying passengers had the same safety standard.
That being charter and RPT.
So why are you all now arguing against it?

[Lead Balloon]

The ‘federal government’ has ‘demanded’ that all fare paying passengers be carried to the same regulatory standard?

The FARs set the same standard for all operations involving fare paying passengers?

You may well have Alzheimer’s.

[Eddie Dean]

The ‘federal government’ has ‘demanded’ that all fare paying passengers be carried to the same regulatory standard?

The FARs set the same standard for all operations involving fare paying passengers?

You may well have Alzheimer’s.
Sorry mate, not quite catching what you mean by "FAR set same standard..."

[Lead Balloon]

The Federal Aviation Regulations administered by the US FAA do not set the same standard for all operations involving fare paying passengers. I cannot say it any clearer or simpler than that.

[Eddie Dean]

The Federal Aviation Regulations administered by the US FAA do not set the same standard for all operations involving fare paying passengers. I cannot say it any clearer or simpler than that.Nor did I. It was the Australian government that set this requirement for fare paying pax in Australia. I sense you are being purposely obtuse once again so shall leave you all to it.

[Fantome]

Don't be purposely obtuse. Follow aroa's advice. . sort of . .. .. have a wet dream . .. . . . then a cold shower before facing the day. (I still have a copy of the Rothman's sponsored little paperback from the sixties called FLIGHT WITHOUT TEARS. "It was all so different . . .before everything changed")

[Lead Balloon]

Eddie Dean, please cite authority for your assertion that: It was the Australian government that set this requirement for [the same standard for all] fare paying pax in Australia.Note: Hallucinations don’t count as authority.

[Fantome]

Note: Hallucinations don’t count as authority.
despite which we are encumbered by countless power crazed bureaucrats and autocrats who are definitely on some kind of trip. You cannot even begin to list their delusions.

[Horatio Leafblower]

The educated here must know that it was the federal government that demanded that all fare paying passengers had the same safety standard.
That being charter and RPT.
So why are you all now arguing against it?

Because, Eddie, the Federal Government is demanding something fundamentally destructive and counter-productive. No person on the street would tell you that "I believe small aeroplanes are just as safe as big aeroplanes". The layman's view (rightly or wrongly and we here are all aware of the nuances and complicating factors) is that there is higher risk in flying in small aeroplanes. You either accept that risk, or reject it, or control it by bringing in an independent auditor to verify that best practice is adhered to.

Insisting upon, and implementing immense bureaucratic requirements for maintenance of small aeroplanes won't change the safety stats.
Fwits will still be fwits. Those willing to break the law today will be more willing to break more laws tomorrow. Those willing to live with the current rules will find these additional pointless rules tempting targets for non-compliance.
At the end of the day Mr Beech says you will maintain your Baron in accordance with THIS manual. He doesn't put 2 standards in or 3 or 4 depending on what you're doing with the aeroplane.

We need rules that are SIMPLE - EFFECTIVE - ACCOUNTABLE.

[30/30 Green Light]

The Committee Against Sustainable Aviation will continue to introduce legislation until GA is but a distant memory ��

[4 Holer]

I can't see CASA allowing Chuck and Larry to pull up in the Ford F250 drop the tail gate and do the 100 hourly on the C310, Tiger moth or Lear 60 issue the maintenance release with their FAA Airframe and Powerplant generic license then drive away ? This what happens in USA with about 150,000 part 91 private aircraft each year nothing more nothing less.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I can't see CASA allowing Chuck and Larry to pull up in the Ford F250 drop the tail gate and do the 100 hourly on the C310, Tiger moth or Lear 60 issue the maintenance release with their FAA Airframe and Powerplant generic license then drive away ? This what happens in USA with about 150,000 part 91 private aircraft each year nothing more nothing less.

4 Holer is there any other way to interpret "FAA Maint for GA"?

...On the other hand, Carmody and Walker tells us that "you don't need an AOC to run a flying school any more". (...but you do need a Part 141 Certificate with a 2" thick manual)

[Sunfish]

Coming from a long ago background in Boeing product, it is physically impossible to make small GA aircraft as safe as big iron because the design and maintenance philosophy is fundamentally different. Furthermore, fiddling with long approved GA maintenance practices risks making charter/GA LESS safe then it’s current status.

[LeadSled]

I can't see CASA allowing Chuck and Larry to pull up in the Ford F250 drop the tail gate and do the 100 hourly on the C310, Tiger moth or Lear 60 issue the maintenance release with their FAA Airframe and Powerplant generic license then drive away ? This what happens in USA with about 150,000 part 91 private aircraft each year nothing more nothing less.

4 holer,
You mean just like it used to be here, until a cable of industry heavyweights (only in the interests of safety, you understand) and a particular union (only in the interests of safety, you understand) with members inside DCA (as it probably was at the time) as well as Industry, all agreed that it would be "much safer" if the longstanding and effective procedures were curtailed, and all maintenance was in future carried out in "approved" premises by an "approved" organisation, like, for example, the facilities of the industry heavyweights, with their unionised employees.

No more "gumtree" annuals.

Some of you would certainly benefit from a greater or more in-depth understanding of US continuing airworthiness practices ( I use the words deliberately, "maintenance" as practiced in Australia is not in practice, or in legal terms, the same as "continuing airworthiness") . And it is far more simple and straightforward than here, and far more effective.

And, if you spent some time in the US ( and shed you "Australian exceptionalism" glasses) you would fine the "average" US GA aircraft in a substantially better state (ie: conform to its .Type Certificate) of airworthiness than is the case in Australia.

Clearly, too many of you believe that the greater the weight, complexity and prescriptiveness of the regulations, all with draconian criminal penalties for asserted non-compliance, the greater the "safety".

And the same principles apply to pilot training and licensing, stick and rudder skills are at the top of the requirements in US, not rote regurgitation of slabs of "procedures", so "they can't pingya"..

Tootle pip!!

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

We need rules that are SIMPLE - EFFECTIVE - ACCOUNTABLE.
I've heard that somewhere before Horatio! :ok:

AWB

[Horatio Leafblower]

I've heard that somewhere before Horatio!

I heard it for the first time yesterday and I'm stealing it and running with it. Brilliant.

[aroa]

Steal it, run with it..but where to ???
When CAsA is OVERLY COMPLEX, INEFFECTIVE and UNACCOUNTABLE.is your chosen logo ever going to come to pass?

[Horatio Leafblower]

.is your chosen logo ever going to come to pass?

You've lost me.
What are you talking about?

[glenb]

You've lost me.
What are you talking about?

For those in the Melbourne Area, there is an info session on the proposed new maintenance regulations. I believe their were about 60 slots and only about 8 remaining so get in quick. Register via Eventbrite, cheers. Glen