Qantas Maintenance Changes
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey nassensteins-monster,
Sorry to drift off thread, but, with regard to torches, what type would you recommend for walk around? I've been looking for a replacement, but can't seem to find one that is both small & bright (I've got a Fenix with lithium batteries, but lithium battery powered personal torches aren't popular with my employer).
Sorry to drift off thread, but, with regard to torches, what type would you recommend for walk around? I've been looking for a replacement, but can't seem to find one that is both small & bright (I've got a Fenix with lithium batteries, but lithium battery powered personal torches aren't popular with my employer).
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRM/CoolB1Banana
Maybe you should have a good look at the regulations. Opening and closing a quick access panel is not a "maintenance" action and it does not invalidate the CRS.
Maybe look up the meaning of "servicing". Servicing is generally considered not maintenance.
Is the CRS invalidated by any of the following???:
Aircraft fuelled.......access panel opened/closed (fuel added).
Water uplifted..........access panel opened/closed (water added).
Toilet serviced.........access panel opened/closed (get the picture).
Maybe you should have a good look at the regulations. Opening and closing a quick access panel is not a "maintenance" action and it does not invalidate the CRS.
Maybe look up the meaning of "servicing". Servicing is generally considered not maintenance.
Is the CRS invalidated by any of the following???:
Aircraft fuelled.......access panel opened/closed (fuel added).
Water uplifted..........access panel opened/closed (water added).
Toilet serviced.........access panel opened/closed (get the picture).
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bcder
bcder, try a Led Lenser P14: 4 x AA. $73 on eBay free postage. Battery life about 100 hrs,
- 210 lumens 205mm long
- Rear mounted thumb switch
- Effective beam length up to 280m
- One-handed adjustable beam: flood & spot
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Peabody, you are 100% correct.
Let's stick to fact not emotion.
And Steve, for reference, a Part 42 CAMO is permitted to vary its approved maintenance program as long as it is not less restrictive than the Instructions for Continuous Airworthiness (in this case the OEM MRB/MPD). It does not require CASA to approve the change.
How well they implement the change is a completely different discussion point, but approval wise they can do it themselves.
MP.
Let's stick to fact not emotion.
And Steve, for reference, a Part 42 CAMO is permitted to vary its approved maintenance program as long as it is not less restrictive than the Instructions for Continuous Airworthiness (in this case the OEM MRB/MPD). It does not require CASA to approve the change.
How well they implement the change is a completely different discussion point, but approval wise they can do it themselves.
MP.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the facts are,
That a daily or pre flight inspection involving the tasks of checking fluid levels and general inspections for defects IS maintenance. If one were to actually top up fluid levels as a result, THEN it would be classified as servicing.
If you need to open a quick access type panel in the process of carrying out the daily inspection, then that is maintenance as well (according to CASA's guide to pilot maintenance).
It's reasonable that a pilot should be be able to carry out tasks that can identify obvious damage or defects so he/she can seek the technical advice from suitably qualified engineers as to how to proceed. Those defects or damage may be identified as Major defects (those that affect the safety of the aircraft) and different pathways will be taken and then may affect the CRS.
BUT, having said that, here are plenty of circumstances where having a Licensed Engineer do the daily or pre flight instead of the pilot is validated.
Experience in identifying a defect is the FIRST thing that is of benefit. The difference between a crack in paint or in structure, or leaking fluid from a drain mast. Is it engine oil or hydraulic oil and what is the permissible leak rate while static or dynamic?
Certainly saves some time for the pilots for peace of mind and to dedicate that time to other operational matters that contribute to " on time departures".
So, Mr Peabody is not 100% correct .
MP, on the other hand is right to observe whether or not change is implemented for the better.
That a daily or pre flight inspection involving the tasks of checking fluid levels and general inspections for defects IS maintenance. If one were to actually top up fluid levels as a result, THEN it would be classified as servicing.
If you need to open a quick access type panel in the process of carrying out the daily inspection, then that is maintenance as well (according to CASA's guide to pilot maintenance).
It's reasonable that a pilot should be be able to carry out tasks that can identify obvious damage or defects so he/she can seek the technical advice from suitably qualified engineers as to how to proceed. Those defects or damage may be identified as Major defects (those that affect the safety of the aircraft) and different pathways will be taken and then may affect the CRS.
BUT, having said that, here are plenty of circumstances where having a Licensed Engineer do the daily or pre flight instead of the pilot is validated.
Experience in identifying a defect is the FIRST thing that is of benefit. The difference between a crack in paint or in structure, or leaking fluid from a drain mast. Is it engine oil or hydraulic oil and what is the permissible leak rate while static or dynamic?
Certainly saves some time for the pilots for peace of mind and to dedicate that time to other operational matters that contribute to " on time departures".
So, Mr Peabody is not 100% correct .
MP, on the other hand is right to observe whether or not change is implemented for the better.
And if pilots have to perform all of MP's suggestions (and they were mentally capable of absorbing all that information) then how many flights would depart within even an hour of 'on time'?
Does anyone reading this, who has any understanding of how much work is involved in safely getting a big jet off the ground safely, actually think the likes of MP's suggestions are anything close to realistic?
I dislike providing people ammunition by responding, but this is madness!!!
IMHO.
Does anyone reading this, who has any understanding of how much work is involved in safely getting a big jet off the ground safely, actually think the likes of MP's suggestions are anything close to realistic?
I dislike providing people ammunition by responding, but this is madness!!!
IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then let me clarify.
The act of opening and closing a quick access panel for the purpose of a fluid level "check" is not maintenance. Under the regulations a pilot of the aircraft may check fluid levels, even if this entails opening and closing quick access panels.
That's not to say that it is practical for all operations, but it is permitted.
The act of "inspecting" against a specified criteria for the purpose of determining serviceability (inspecting oil level and calculating consumption rate per AMM requirements) is clearly a maintenance activity. The check of oil level as described in the earlier paragraph is also maintenance if it forms part of the approved maintenance program for the aircraft (Daily or similar level maintenance pre-flight checks).
MP.
The act of opening and closing a quick access panel for the purpose of a fluid level "check" is not maintenance. Under the regulations a pilot of the aircraft may check fluid levels, even if this entails opening and closing quick access panels.
That's not to say that it is practical for all operations, but it is permitted.
The act of "inspecting" against a specified criteria for the purpose of determining serviceability (inspecting oil level and calculating consumption rate per AMM requirements) is clearly a maintenance activity. The check of oil level as described in the earlier paragraph is also maintenance if it forms part of the approved maintenance program for the aircraft (Daily or similar level maintenance pre-flight checks).
MP.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a Qantas 737 go to and airport with out engineering support ? Ie a pilot does walk around , refuels and signs maintence log . No riding eng or ground engineer at all ?
MP:
How about you learn to complete a pilots preflight in (let's be generous) 40 minutes - generous because you won't pass a course unless you can do it in 15, and you have to know ALL the regs associated with every button push and indication. Then add all the crap you are talking about adding to the workload, not on the flight deck, but the tarmac. Ever walked off the flight deck with 200-400 pax walking the other way? Do you understand what the fast moving hand on your watch actually means?
You aren't Joyce are you? If you aren't, then you may have a friend, because he is as ignorant in what his airline actually does as you are....
How about you learn to complete a pilots preflight in (let's be generous) 40 minutes - generous because you won't pass a course unless you can do it in 15, and you have to know ALL the regs associated with every button push and indication. Then add all the crap you are talking about adding to the workload, not on the flight deck, but the tarmac. Ever walked off the flight deck with 200-400 pax walking the other way? Do you understand what the fast moving hand on your watch actually means?
You aren't Joyce are you? If you aren't, then you may have a friend, because he is as ignorant in what his airline actually does as you are....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument from me on the practicality of any of this in the QF operation.
My point is that it is no use writing to and blaming CASA for QF poor operational decisions, or poor QF implementations.
CASA's hands are held if the action is permissible under the regulations.
MP.
My point is that it is no use writing to and blaming CASA for QF poor operational decisions, or poor QF implementations.
CASA's hands are held if the action is permissible under the regulations.
MP.
I appreciate your response, but in Casa's case I disagree.
Acquiescence, in Qf's case to it's desires, is complicit in the subterfuge.
It is demonstrably impossible to comply, therefore CASA's hands are tied, as you suggest. But as I see it, in the complete opposite way as to how you see the regulations applying.
If the regs are impossible to comply with, then it is CASA that HAS to act. Whether they want to wipe their hands of it or not, the responsibility, ultimately is theirs. If not theirs, then who else?
Acquiescence, in Qf's case to it's desires, is complicit in the subterfuge.
It is demonstrably impossible to comply, therefore CASA's hands are tied, as you suggest. But as I see it, in the complete opposite way as to how you see the regulations applying.
If the regs are impossible to comply with, then it is CASA that HAS to act. Whether they want to wipe their hands of it or not, the responsibility, ultimately is theirs. If not theirs, then who else?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulations are fine.
I respectfully suggest that you think they only apply to you guys, they don't. They apply to any AOC operation, which may be a Piper or a Beech aircraft.
Many pilots perform maintenance pre-flights in smaller operations, be they smaller aircraft or smaller fleets of large aircraft. In these situations the adequate controls can be effectively managed to the safe and compliant outcome.
As I mentioned earlier, how the operator implements the changes is the key.
MP.
I respectfully suggest that you think they only apply to you guys, they don't. They apply to any AOC operation, which may be a Piper or a Beech aircraft.
Many pilots perform maintenance pre-flights in smaller operations, be they smaller aircraft or smaller fleets of large aircraft. In these situations the adequate controls can be effectively managed to the safe and compliant outcome.
As I mentioned earlier, how the operator implements the changes is the key.
MP.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrPeabody
You are right that a pilot can perform some servicing functions but you are wrong when it comes to a physical check of engine oils on a QF aircraft. CASA may deem it OK for a pilot to physically check engine oils but the QEPM and QF 145 Exposition does not. A physical check of engine oils requires a certified tech log entry to record uplift, even if the uplift is nil. It is this tech log entry that will cause your CRS to be no longer valid. A similar example is removal of landing gear down lock pins. Considered by CASA as a servicing function and able to be carried out by a pilot but not by the QF system of maintenance. The QEPM specifies that an entry be made in the tech log that must be certified by a licenced engineer. A CRS can not be issued until that happens.
It is not as simple as reading the CASA regs when it comes to maintenance/servicing. The QF 145 Exposition and all docs it refers to demonstrate to CASA how QF complies with the intent of its regulations and in both the above cases OVERRIDES those regulations.
You are right that a pilot can perform some servicing functions but you are wrong when it comes to a physical check of engine oils on a QF aircraft. CASA may deem it OK for a pilot to physically check engine oils but the QEPM and QF 145 Exposition does not. A physical check of engine oils requires a certified tech log entry to record uplift, even if the uplift is nil. It is this tech log entry that will cause your CRS to be no longer valid. A similar example is removal of landing gear down lock pins. Considered by CASA as a servicing function and able to be carried out by a pilot but not by the QF system of maintenance. The QEPM specifies that an entry be made in the tech log that must be certified by a licenced engineer. A CRS can not be issued until that happens.
It is not as simple as reading the CASA regs when it comes to maintenance/servicing. The QF 145 Exposition and all docs it refers to demonstrate to CASA how QF complies with the intent of its regulations and in both the above cases OVERRIDES those regulations.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure about the pins cool banana?
Inserting and removing pins is in the 737 ops procedures for Pilots for unscheduled overnights at non maintenance bases as I recall.
Inserting and removing pins is in the 737 ops procedures for Pilots for unscheduled overnights at non maintenance bases as I recall.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB and MP I have checked with CASA and opening of the oil service panel after the completion of maintenance is considered undocumented maintenance.
This action WILL cancel the CRS as previously posted.
No emotion just facts.
Civil Aviation Act 1988
maintenancemeans any task required to ensure, or that could affect, the continuingairworthiness of an aircraft or aeronautical product, including any one orcombination of overhaul, repair, inspection, replacement of an aeronauticalproduct, modification or defect rectification.
This action WILL cancel the CRS as previously posted.
No emotion just facts.
Civil Aviation Act 1988
maintenancemeans any task required to ensure, or that could affect, the continuingairworthiness of an aircraft or aeronautical product, including any one orcombination of overhaul, repair, inspection, replacement of an aeronauticalproduct, modification or defect rectification.
I cannot decide if all of this makes sense or is regulation gone wild.
How is inspection defined? When I do an external preflight it is to verify the airworthiness of the aircraft. Doubly so when no engineer performs the task. So I check for gear pins, brake wear pins, tyre condition, external damage, missing static wicks, leaks, etc, and I check the fluid quantities, various temps and pressures on my gauges. On the 737 pilots even check hydraulic reservoir sight glasses.
How do the light twin operators handle this? Surely a pilot can open the panel, twist open the cap and check the oil dipstick? How about checking tyre pressure? Refuelling? Deicing?
How is inspection defined? When I do an external preflight it is to verify the airworthiness of the aircraft. Doubly so when no engineer performs the task. So I check for gear pins, brake wear pins, tyre condition, external damage, missing static wicks, leaks, etc, and I check the fluid quantities, various temps and pressures on my gauges. On the 737 pilots even check hydraulic reservoir sight glasses.
How do the light twin operators handle this? Surely a pilot can open the panel, twist open the cap and check the oil dipstick? How about checking tyre pressure? Refuelling? Deicing?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might take you a while to find the engine oil dipstick on a QF aircraft, unless you have a time machine on hand.
What do you think happens when an engine runs out of oil because a pilot left the cap off during his undocumented physical oil check? They carry out a MEDA investigation and slot the last engineer to document an oil check.
What do you think happens when an engine runs out of oil because a pilot left the cap off during his undocumented physical oil check? They carry out a MEDA investigation and slot the last engineer to document an oil check.
Well, if you would be so kind as to RTFQ I mentioned dipsticks in the context of light twins. And don't be so insulting...I have a catalogue of horror stories of engineer stuff-ups. How many days of LAME instruction is devoted to twisting the oil cap back on?