Flight Manuals 2

[Wheeler]

So it was all for nothing then?

(Can we get our money back for the new manuals?)

Doesnt it make you laugh!



Traditional Australian Flight Manual AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA

WONDERFUL NEWS FOR AUSTRALIAN PILOTS ON THIS OTHERWISE BLACK DAY

YOU CAN NOW KEEP YOUR TAFM - CONTACT US TODAY AND BEAT THE RUSH

The Traditional Australian Flight Manual (TAFM) has been revived effective tomorrow, 12th September 2002.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA congratulates and thanks John Anderson, (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) for promulgating the new rules. We also congratulate Mick Toller, the Director of CASA. This shows that John Anderson really does listen if people make their concerns very clear. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA has issued a Press Release unreservedly praising the Minister for listening.

AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA also salutes its members who wrote to the Minister demanding that the TAFM be retained. Your polite but firm and clear messages were what persuaded the Minister and Mr. Toller that the TAFM should be retained.

Under the new rules you can apply to have your TAFM approved for your aircraft. If you are a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA we will apply on your behalf if you ask us to do so. We will ensure that you are at THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE. We will also ensure that it your application is dealt with promptly and is not refused unreasonably. If you are a member, and want to keep your TAFM, FAX US TODAY on the form below because there will be a rush.

If you are not a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA yet, why not join up right now and let us get your application in pronto? Just fill in the form below and we will contact you.


Boyd Munro, 11th September 2002

============================================================ ==============

[Creampuff]

I have to laugh when I read about this stuff.

When your 'industry' is faced with the reality of what it asked for - freedom from the shackles of having the local regulator create and approve changes to a unique flight manual, with all the regulatory detritus that comes with that - the 'industry' lobbies to have the regulator keep it all in place! It's like the kid who leaves home to be independent, but then gets mom to wash his clothes and make his dinner.

[Chimbu chuckles]

So..seeing as how I had not got around to doing anyhing about a new manual for my aircraft...does this mean don't need to and my current manual remains approved?

Chuck.

[tealady]

We have gone to great lengths and much expense to ensure we had the appropiate flight manuals in place at the allotted date.
Who pays us for the time and money wasted on this? It's just like CASA forcing us to buy fax machines, then computers, to have a corporate credit card and be on the internet only to shaft everybody by letting the contract for exams to a very incompetent business that has its home base as NZ. The exams are NOT as promised - i.e. 5 days a week. Students do not have the solitude that is rightfully theirs when sitting an exam - telephones ring and students sitting different exams come and go at will. Many companies spent in excess of $25,000.00 to buy computers for the cyberexam system believing they would be able to conduct at least IREX and CPL exams. When will this "corporate irresponsibility" by CASA cease?
Edited for spelling errors

[ulm]

1) Munro doesn't really achieve anything. Ask the Minister.

2) Chuck, interesting question. Now we don't know. Does my 1944 bugsmasher now need the old maunual I threw away after being told I didn't need one.

Great. We got what we wanted. It was a little hard for a few, so Munro stuffs it all up by making a political fuss.

Is there any hope for this industry????

[gunshy67]

ULM,

Don't get personal. Not nice!

The whole AFM issue is a mess. On again off again. It was fine the way it was and the new way achieved little that I could see.

This often happen these days. Suddenly we get a new "thing" to do.......all in the name of safety. Rubbish.

Have you had time to have a look at the MEL issue? Try reading between the lines if you have a radio or GPS U/S. Must be fixed in "X' days.

But the AIP says you only need such and such.

I praise those who highlight the nonsense in an effort to get some commonsense back into the game........not muscle-bound, baseball wielding people with agenda's quite different to yours or mine.

Have a calm day

[Wheeler]

From some of the emails that have come as a result of this forum, particularly from a different organisation that represents us, it seems that it might not be all off after all ........

I'm still trying to laugh but, what an industry and what a regulator!

Now then, should we try something simple? IFR GPS installation and database requirements or something?

[Islander Jock]

gunshy67,

Don't get personal. Not nice!
I presume here you are referring to Ulm's comment about Mr Munro?

Believe me, it will be water off a duck's back to BM. It would want to be too given some of his vilification antics in the past.

[ulm]

My point is that the industry screamed for this a few years back. Granted CASA's muddling ways didn't help. But now, because a few idiots have been too idle to get off thier fat bums and go get a manual, BM starts screaming and making it all the more complex. (I have done 4 different ones so far, it aint that hard!!! Even for a one of type aircraft :mad: )

So, who is going to update the old Manuals. You gonna keep CASA in the loop???? :confused:

What happens if you have an accident and your chipmunk manual is different from the pommy chipmunk manual in an area related to the prang cos it is a TAFM and you didn't know how to update it??? :confused:

So there we go back to the same insurance problem BM claims to have fixed. :mad:

In my opinion, BM is a well intentioned (but some what nasty) pommy meddler who is a little out of his depth. I know I am not alone in wishing he'd just go fly that silly looking Navajo into the sunset and retire from whatever it is he does.

[gunshy67]

Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs Ulm,

Again not nice at all. Please solutions, not the other stuff!

I had/have an AFM approved by CASA. That was before the new rules about getting the manufacturers one in stead.

Do I go back to the old approved one or the new approved one.

I have contacted CASA and all they know is an extension to the deadline.

So can you or someone enlighten me as to the formal position.

With thanks.

:rolleyes:

[ulm]

Dear Gunshy.

No, I aint nice. Not when f@@ls go about claiming the sky is falling.

Now, as to your questions.

1) See if you are on the exempt list. If you are, placard according to your TCDS. (you can download that from the FAA (big assumption there)).

2) If you aint, and think you should be. Get your TCDS and see if it specifies a manual. If it doesn't they will add you to the list. Goto 1)

3) If you are on the list get the manual. The CASA help center will tell you which one you must have. When you have it they will even e-mail you an approval page. If you have an STC you need to put those pages in. (They should be in your old manual, otherwise get them from the STC owner).'

4) The 'TAFM'??? Bu&&ered if I know :confused: Not on top of that. In certain circumstances it makes sense but is fraught with liability danger.

Chuck

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Please folks, let's not confuse the likes of BM or AOPA with "industry"!!!!!

The TAFM (?) contains very little useful information about how to actually operate the aircraft, unlike the manufacturers POH. The ones I came across were mostly badly typed if not illegible and often had pages missing. When I came here from overseas I was amazed that these little things were legal documents.

Like tealady we got ours before the (original) deadline. It wasn't difficult, it wasn't cheap either, but was definately the better way to go. Things that are easily found in the POH were becoming the stuff of old wives tales. I'd rather follow the manufacturers recommendations than a tatty old file full of scrappy pages.

There seem to be some people who just object to things for the sake of being awkward, that's how they end up contradicting themselves so much. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Was discussing this issue today with the CFI at a certain SE Qld Aero Club and, having been shown some paperwork, am convinced that NOTHING has been reversed AT ALL.

New Serialised Manufacturers Flight Manuals ARE STILL REQUIRED!

As for the relative merits of the local product verses what we are going to....I agree with CFI...the Oz Manuals may have been OK back in the dark ages but not anymore.

I will be ordering mine on Monday...the only reason it has not been done before now is that I've been overseas for a few years and the aircraft has been in a hanger in bits for the last 7 odd months.

Chuck.

[gunshy67]

Dear Mr/Ms Ulm,

Don't be un-nice. We need nice people in the game, don't you think?

When the new rules were published I did all that and have the approval page etc.. I always try to do it now rather than later and to keep thoroughly legal.

I am amazed at the costs I hear about. $600 for an AFM? If that is true then it was rip-off.

I had my USA office buy one from the local agent for my tail number and it cost $40 (AUD}!!!!!!!

My main question is what is the status of the "old" Australianised AFM versus the new "Manufacturers one".

From what Chimbu chuckles has stated, there is no change and the current scene is that the new "Manufacturers one" is still a requirement, notwithstanding that prosecution for no compliance will not be invoked untill 2003.

That again is a nonsense!

Dear Chimbu chuckles,

Thanks for your input. I take it you are absoluetly sure that the new AFM is still a requirement?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yes that is my understanding...the fax I saw was very specific and dated today.

Chuck.

[gunshy67]

Chimbu chuckles

Many thanks.

Makes me feel a lot better to get the reall issues straight.

[cogwheel]

This whole exercise is a mess and we are paying for it

I can demonstrate that the NEW flight manual under certain circumstances may cause incorrect data to be looked up, leaving open the door for causing an accident or engine or airframe damage.

Many TAFMs were quite satisfactory and to retain them should always have been an option.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

By NEW do you mean the original manufacturers one that was an integral part of the aircraft when it was sold, or the Australian one that was produced later?

:confused:

I would be interested in your demonstration.

[cogwheel]

By NEW, I mean the one that had to be "written" to comply with the new CASA requirements. (there was not one previously provided by the mfgr)

The aircraft was delivered new with one of those little black flight manuals that everyone had. That was it.

The NEW manual written now casa say has to reflect the aircraft when it was built. However if it has since been modified to such an extent that it is no longer the aircraft that it was built as then the NEW flight manual does NOT reflect the a/c as it is now. This data is buried in section 9 IN ADDITION to all the data that is no longer relevant.

If having two sets of data in a flight manual you consider safe, that’s fine, but I certainly don’t.

The potential for confusion is unacceptable.

[john_tullamarine]

Is not the intention that any modifications are reflected in Supplements to the basic manual ? ... no different to the US situation.

If you have a bird with differences, then the new AFM has to have raised for its benefit appropriate supplements.

[cogwheel]

JT - that may be casa's intention, but from a practical and safety point of view it is not a very desirable situation. Especially when the supplement changes every bit of of data except maybe the dimensions etc. Having two lots of data is just plane dumb and potentially a safety hazard. Makes you wonder when the existing manual reflects the aircraft in its modified condition.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well having ordered my new manual through HP Bankstown (Aus$186 +GST)...dunno where you guys get this $400 stuff from...Beechcraft aren't exactly renown for being cheap:D...I find that the previous owners had already supplied one with the exact same part number.

This is what happens when you actually haven't been near your own aircraft in nearly two years:( (due living overseas in case you're wondering why.)

So in my aircrafts glovebox was both the Beechcraft Flight Manual and the DCA one, it's a 1970 model so it was DCA then:eek: and all I have to do is move the supplements from one to the other, get it approved presumedly, and Bob is your cross dressing Aunty:D.

I had thought about cancelling the order for the newer one but decided that having one at home as well as the one in the aircraft was worth $200 odd.

As far as my A36 is concerned the general info in the manual is very good, as you'd expect from Beechcraft, and combined with the aircraft specific data from the old DCA manual will provide an excellent Approved Flight Manual.

I honestly don't see what people are complaining about...it's an improvement.

Chuck.

[john_tullamarine]

Cogwheel,

You appear to be talking about a pretty serious set of modifications.

There are two pathways from which to choose

(a) smaller mods are addressed by supplements which stay in the manual but only apply when the mod is installed/active

(b) a major rework normally is the subject of an STC and the aircraft typically has a new flight manual developed and is given a new designation ... this may be a little different under the current rules ... I am a bit removed from current Australian practice.

The actual path taken should be assessed in consultation with your friendly local CAR 35 man or the local CASA Engineering people... your profile doesn't tell me where you are located. Do send me an email with a few details and I can suggest a name or two for you ..

[I Fly]

Chimbu Chuckles, Cessna Pacific quoted me $417.16 for my C 152 POH. When it got delivered it actually was $491.06. It has 2 more amendments in it than the manual I had. Why was I not able just to buy the extra 2 amendments? And I still have to incorporate the old P Charts to be able to calculate climb weight limits. It's crazy.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I Fly,

Now that's obscene...$500 for a C152 POH:eek: I think I got 'given' one with my Cessna Pilot Center Pack when I started at Rex in 1981.

It will be interesting to see whether there is any difference between the 'new' Bonanza POH and the one that came with the aircraft...same part number but who knows what the amendment status is.

My Bonanza has an IO550 as opposed to the IO520 it was initially fitted with and a 3 blade Blac Mac prop as opposed to the original Hartzell 2 blade. All the STC'd data for those mods is in the OZ AFM and will be suitably installed into the new POH, along with the P charts etc, when it arrives...some judicious photocopying should see me with two identical Aircraft Flight Manuals. More by accident than design.

Interesting to see that the CASA 'approved' manual covers every Bonanza from E-001 to E-926....mine being E-219...so it will need some 'tweaking' to be a truly aircraft specific document, but I enjoy that stuff.

Cogwheel,

If your aircraft is so highly modified surely you need to build a complete new manual from scratch...using a combination of manufacturers or DCA Data as appropriate. You could end up with a really good document for not THAT much effort...surely you know your own aeroplane well enough to know what needs to be in it. I would think that the last thing anyone wants to see, let alone CASA, is 'two manuals in one' with conflicting data. I would agree with JT that a few hours spent with CASA Engineering/airworthiness and some thoughtful time at home would yield a manual that CASA will be happy to approve.

Chuck.

[cogwheel]

In respect to the aircraft I refer to, it has been modified by STC and is no longer the model that it was when rolled out of the factory. (eg: a bit like changing a C150 to a C152 with a bigger engine)

CASA say that the new flight manual must be that of what was rolled out of the factory, but as I said it is no longer that model.

My CAR35 man wanted to provide a manual to reflect the existing status of the aircraft but CASA told him no, it (the mod) must be in Section 9...!

JT in your response (a) - agreed. (b) Yes, it was a major rework and was provided with a old sylye DCA AFM to cover the mod. But this is no longer acceptable to CASA - they want the old pre mod manual with the mods in section 9 ... what crap!

My CAR35 man tried as above but CASA would not move.....

Chimbo.. tryied what you suggest but as above CASA not interested. We have all the data to do a AFM that reflects the modified aircraft, but thats not what CASA want. They want what we don't... two lots of data in the same book...

I certainly wont be happy until the AFM reflects the aircraft as is now. Pitty is the change process should have thought of this and made provision.

[john_tullamarine]

Cogwheel,

Sounds a bit offkey to me but it gets back to a question of how involved the mod(s) is(are). As I said earlier I am a little out of the Australian loop so I am not able to comment with any competence.

Suggest you give John Klingberg in Canberra a call via 131 757 .. he is the Flight Manuals bossman last I heard ... a nice bloke as well ... and should be able to tell you what the REAL story is.

One of the problems in recent years has been that the District Offices are just as confused at times as the rest of us and there is the occasional procedural discrepancy between one and the other ....

[djpil]

Well, the moratorium on Flight Manuals ended a few weeks ago. How's everyone going with it?

I thought it was a good time to review the rules of the game. I've quoted the relevant rules below for your information.

CAAP 54-1(2) encourages us to continue to use the old weight and balance loading system as well as the old P charts. It also states that operational data is not required to be in the AFM.
i.e. It encourages the continued use of pages from the old Australian Flight Manual. It suggests that the old CAO 100.7 over-rides the new Regulation Part 23. It states that certain sections of the new Regulations below do not apply, by an interpretation of the old Reg 54! Reg 54 itself calls up, indirectly, FAR 23 so para 23.1581 can never go away.

The regulations below are quite clear. If there is information required to comply with operating rules (such as CAO 20.7.4) then such information must be in the Flight Manual - and that doesn't mean that an operator can simply slip the old stuff into the Flight Manual folder himself - there are clear rules on how changes to Flight Manuals are approved.

Important - read Reg 138 - you must comply with instructions and procedures in the Flight Manual - you must not operate the aeroplane contrary to the Flight Manual. I'd say that Reg 38 takes precedence over any CAAP or CAO.

FAR 23. 1581 is quite clear and that's going to remain with us. Reg 54 will go when the new CASR 91 takes effect - at that time there will be absolutely no basis for the sugegstion that the old Flight Manual data may be used. Of course, CAO 20.7.4 and CAO 100.7 will disappear as well. I look forward to the next round of Flight Manual changes.

Finally, please don't spend too much time on this subject right now - the big thing on the agenda now is the FLOT Conference. I'll see you there.
________________________________________________


Reg 138 requires that pilots "must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual"

CASR 23 calls up FAR 23 and para 23.1581 states:
"An Airplane Flight Manual must be furnished with each airplane, and it must contain the following:
(1) Information required by Secs. 23.1583 through 23.1589.
(2) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
[(3) Further information necessary to comply with the relevant operating rules.]"

Reg 54 states "that flight manual; or
(b) in any other case — any manual or other document (not being a placard) that must, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, be provided with the aircraft and contain the following information and instructions about the aircraft:
(i) the limitations within which, under the relevant airworthiness standards, it is considered airworthy;
(ii) any other information, and any instructions, necessary for its safe operation."