Flight Manuals
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Manuals
Well, its almost August 16.
Has everyone purchased their nice shiny new ($400?) Flight Manuals?
So now its absolutely certain we will have Flight Manuals that comply with the new CASA regs and the CAO's.....
We are still waiting for the front pages from CASA having applied for them many weeks ago, but absolutely certain they will arrive in time. After all, it was their wonderful idea and it is inconceivable they would not put in place the administrative processes to support it.
Any interesting experiences to share on this one?
Has everyone purchased their nice shiny new ($400?) Flight Manuals?
So now its absolutely certain we will have Flight Manuals that comply with the new CASA regs and the CAO's.....
We are still waiting for the front pages from CASA having applied for them many weeks ago, but absolutely certain they will arrive in time. After all, it was their wonderful idea and it is inconceivable they would not put in place the administrative processes to support it.
Any interesting experiences to share on this one?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of Cr@p.
It is costing me (havn't paid yet!) around $300 for a new "approved" flight manual that is not applicable to my aeroplane! And with less info in it to boot!
Tell me the safety and cost benefit of that??
What does the 6 months grace mean? .... the rule should be scrapped.
It is costing me (havn't paid yet!) around $300 for a new "approved" flight manual that is not applicable to my aeroplane! And with less info in it to boot!
Tell me the safety and cost benefit of that??
What does the 6 months grace mean? .... the rule should be scrapped.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Cessna's (even twins) don't need an AFM since they were certified without AFM, placards on panel and airframe suffice along with 6.2 weight and balance data from aircraft actual weight.
So knock your selves out, point at end of runway and launch, you won't know if you are safe or not, no data must be safe ??????
So knock your selves out, point at end of runway and launch, you won't know if you are safe or not, no data must be safe ??????
The biggest issue with flight manuals is the internal disconnect within CASA. From CAAP 54-1(2) "all aircraft must have the approved information necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft ...... The form and content of the information is that accepted and approved by the relevant NAA ..".
CAO 20.7.4 (and others in that series) require additional information to be supplied by the CofR holder. The whole philosophy of these CAO's is inconsistent with the use of the AFM/POH from the country of origin. It is impossible to comply with CAO 20.7.4 as it requires data per CAO 101.22 which was cancelled several years ago. The CAAP suggests that the data may be placed "in a convenient folder available to the pilot".
From the definition in CAAP 54-1(2) above - information for the safe operation of the aircraft is either in the AFM/POH or its not required full stop. The data required by CAO 20.7.4 should really be in a CASA approved supplement but that would mean replicating most of the old CASA AFM. The CAAP touches upon this subject in para 4.8.2.
"e.g. weight limitation for runway performance, requires approval by the authority, but is not required to be an AFM supplement, if the basic performance as detailed in the AFM can still be achieved." The later CASA guide to the new flight manuals doesn't address this subject. Even a Cessna 150 can't meet CAO 20.7.4 with the original AFM performance data. I would like to see a CASA example of a complete package meeting all of their requirements for a Cessna 150 then we can start discussing more complex airplanes.
From samples of new flight manuals that I've seen recently I'm quite sure that very few people in industry or CASA really understand the new rules of the game.
The second biggest issue is the question of retrospectivity. My aeroplane has been quite happy for the last 23 years with the old CASA flight manual. Why the need for change over for old aeroplanes if there's no other reason to amend the flight manual?
CAO 20.7.4 (and others in that series) require additional information to be supplied by the CofR holder. The whole philosophy of these CAO's is inconsistent with the use of the AFM/POH from the country of origin. It is impossible to comply with CAO 20.7.4 as it requires data per CAO 101.22 which was cancelled several years ago. The CAAP suggests that the data may be placed "in a convenient folder available to the pilot".
From the definition in CAAP 54-1(2) above - information for the safe operation of the aircraft is either in the AFM/POH or its not required full stop. The data required by CAO 20.7.4 should really be in a CASA approved supplement but that would mean replicating most of the old CASA AFM. The CAAP touches upon this subject in para 4.8.2.
"e.g. weight limitation for runway performance, requires approval by the authority, but is not required to be an AFM supplement, if the basic performance as detailed in the AFM can still be achieved." The later CASA guide to the new flight manuals doesn't address this subject. Even a Cessna 150 can't meet CAO 20.7.4 with the original AFM performance data. I would like to see a CASA example of a complete package meeting all of their requirements for a Cessna 150 then we can start discussing more complex airplanes.
From samples of new flight manuals that I've seen recently I'm quite sure that very few people in industry or CASA really understand the new rules of the game.
The second biggest issue is the question of retrospectivity. My aeroplane has been quite happy for the last 23 years with the old CASA flight manual. Why the need for change over for old aeroplanes if there's no other reason to amend the flight manual?
Moderator
Hang on a bit, there, Pilks ..... you are starting to sound rational ... in discussing an irrational subject .....
damned if I can work out how people are going to approach some of the odds and ends which have fallen through the cracks ...
so far no-one has asked me to do a flight manual job ....
regards ....
damned if I can work out how people are going to approach some of the odds and ends which have fallen through the cracks ...
so far no-one has asked me to do a flight manual job ....
regards ....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee.
And isn't Airsafety Australia (aka Boyd) helping?????
Put youself in CASA's position (or the Minister for that matter).
AOPA says 'hey c'mon CASA, no one can work this new manual stuff out it time give us a break'
CASA says 'Oh OK then, we will try to be a good guy'
Boyd says "whack, aha, conspiracy, etc etc etc" and shoots out a whingeogram.
GOOD ONE!!!
You think the minister is gonna listen,...... complain when its bad, complain more when it's good. You think CASA is ever gonna try be the good guy again if they get whacked for it when they do.
DOH!!!!!!
Sometimes some people might be the full six pack but lack the little plastic thingy keeping it all together!!!!!
And isn't Airsafety Australia (aka Boyd) helping?????
Put youself in CASA's position (or the Minister for that matter).
AOPA says 'hey c'mon CASA, no one can work this new manual stuff out it time give us a break'
CASA says 'Oh OK then, we will try to be a good guy'
Boyd says "whack, aha, conspiracy, etc etc etc" and shoots out a whingeogram.
GOOD ONE!!!
You think the minister is gonna listen,...... complain when its bad, complain more when it's good. You think CASA is ever gonna try be the good guy again if they get whacked for it when they do.
DOH!!!!!!
Sometimes some people might be the full six pack but lack the little plastic thingy keeping it all together!!!!!
Moderator
Ulm,
Not too sure what your reference to Boyd might be ...
Pilks and I are being quite serious here .... and this sort of thing is in our line of business ...
CASA's desire to get out of the flight manuals business is not the problem ... there are many cogent reasons for the regulator to do so in respect of the majority of aircraft manuals.
We just have some concern that the procedure might well have been implemented differently and with a little more flexibility ...
Just an opinion, of course ....
Not too sure what your reference to Boyd might be ...
Pilks and I are being quite serious here .... and this sort of thing is in our line of business ...
CASA's desire to get out of the flight manuals business is not the problem ... there are many cogent reasons for the regulator to do so in respect of the majority of aircraft manuals.
We just have some concern that the procedure might well have been implemented differently and with a little more flexibility ...
Just an opinion, of course ....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Ulm's point is that Boyd's fax isn't helping.
A number of owners expressed concerns over getting the manuals in time, AOPA talked to CASA, CASA came to the party.
Continually bashing even when CASA help isn't productive.
AK
A number of owners expressed concerns over getting the manuals in time, AOPA talked to CASA, CASA came to the party.
Continually bashing even when CASA help isn't productive.
AK
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do we do for p charts etc? The new manuals don't have any at all. Just simple tables that don't seem to cover half of the possible things a pilot might encounter. Do we need p charts to be legal?
It doesn't really matter I spose. Grant tells me he is far to busy to get on with this stuff anyway!
I reckon Boyd might have a point.
I wonder where the 'legal responsibilities of of CoR holders' will leave us if the baloon really goes up on this one - even if CASA say they will not enforce the law until a certain date.
It doesn't really matter I spose. Grant tells me he is far to busy to get on with this stuff anyway!
I reckon Boyd might have a point.
I wonder where the 'legal responsibilities of of CoR holders' will leave us if the baloon really goes up on this one - even if CASA say they will not enforce the law until a certain date.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Munro is miffed because AOPA did the sensible thing and negotiated a moratorium with CASA and stole his thunder.
In any event, Mr Munro does not have the ear of CASA or the Government so any grandstanding by himself or his disciples would be wasted.
The cost and difficulty in getting manuals out of the US aircraft manufcaturers is a serious problem. Perhaps CASA should have done a bulk deal with the manufacturers to get this sorted.
In any event, Mr Munro does not have the ear of CASA or the Government so any grandstanding by himself or his disciples would be wasted.
The cost and difficulty in getting manuals out of the US aircraft manufcaturers is a serious problem. Perhaps CASA should have done a bulk deal with the manufacturers to get this sorted.
Moderator
Wheeler,
You have identified one of the practical problems .... historically, Australian light aircraft manuals have put into the manuals the operational restrictions which the operator is responsible for in the US.
Whatever US manual you get for the new requirements is fine ... but you ought to give some consideration as to what safety fudge factors you might wish to apply in the real world use of the POH numbers ... if you still have the old P charts, there is nothing to stop your using them provided that they are conservative with respect to the US manuals ... as they almost always will be.
This is even a concern with the heavy manuals where the US practice is to present, for instance, landing data unfactored and then rely on, for example, 121 requirements to cause the operator to adopt the conventional fudge factors ....
Many traps for Australian players over the next few years until we have a few prangs and the message starts to filter through ..... suggest that people advance with caution in the matter of using US POH data ... the old paternalistic days of the Australian regulator's looking after us are GONE ..... we are now moving into the big bad real world where you are, to a large extent .... on your own.
One of the major concerns I have is in regard to the typical lightie pilot who routinely flys out of a nice long runway at, say, Moorabbin or Bankstown and then heads off bush and is faced with a critical landing/takeoff at a bush ALA or paddock ..... this is where mindless and uncritical use of the US data is going to bite and bite hard ...
It will be better when the harmonisation regulatory process catches up with itself ... if it ever does ..... but, at present, there are more than a few holes in the setup ..... please do be careful and cautious out there, good people ...
You have identified one of the practical problems .... historically, Australian light aircraft manuals have put into the manuals the operational restrictions which the operator is responsible for in the US.
Whatever US manual you get for the new requirements is fine ... but you ought to give some consideration as to what safety fudge factors you might wish to apply in the real world use of the POH numbers ... if you still have the old P charts, there is nothing to stop your using them provided that they are conservative with respect to the US manuals ... as they almost always will be.
This is even a concern with the heavy manuals where the US practice is to present, for instance, landing data unfactored and then rely on, for example, 121 requirements to cause the operator to adopt the conventional fudge factors ....
Many traps for Australian players over the next few years until we have a few prangs and the message starts to filter through ..... suggest that people advance with caution in the matter of using US POH data ... the old paternalistic days of the Australian regulator's looking after us are GONE ..... we are now moving into the big bad real world where you are, to a large extent .... on your own.
One of the major concerns I have is in regard to the typical lightie pilot who routinely flys out of a nice long runway at, say, Moorabbin or Bankstown and then heads off bush and is faced with a critical landing/takeoff at a bush ALA or paddock ..... this is where mindless and uncritical use of the US data is going to bite and bite hard ...
It will be better when the harmonisation regulatory process catches up with itself ... if it ever does ..... but, at present, there are more than a few holes in the setup ..... please do be careful and cautious out there, good people ...
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 16th Aug 2002 at 01:01.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear PPRuNe'rs
I put this forward as an idea and if I have completely misunderstood what is happening, please only throw food or money. I still have to live.
It would appear that what CASA is doing is absolving itself of any responsibility if someone has an incident/accident whilst using one of their modified p charts in a flight manual.
CASA would appear to have a history of disclaiming any responsibility for anything that may occur whilst an operator is complying with a CASA requirement. There is a strong argument that there is an abuse of legislative power in all of this.
I put this forward as an idea and if I have completely misunderstood what is happening, please only throw food or money. I still have to live.
It would appear that what CASA is doing is absolving itself of any responsibility if someone has an incident/accident whilst using one of their modified p charts in a flight manual.
CASA would appear to have a history of disclaiming any responsibility for anything that may occur whilst an operator is complying with a CASA requirement. There is a strong argument that there is an abuse of legislative power in all of this.
Moderator
... you have an accident ..... by definition you bear the greatest part of the responsibility (unless someone sneaks up behind you or you score some military ordnance in an area where it ought not to be ... then just depends on how innovative your mouthpiece is ....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John T,
If one considers the take-off requirements contained in the AFM and follows the appropriate instructions and orders I believe the solution is already before us. The C208B AFM for example tabulates the T/O Distance (GRD ROLL FT and TOTAL FEET TO CLEAR 50FT OBS) for a paved, level, dry runway – zero wind. The notes express percentage factors for headwind, tailwind, dry grass runway, and use of the inertial separator. If the final figure is then factored 1.25 as prescribed in CAO 20.7.4 surely no further fudge factors should be required.
'…but you ought to give some consideration as to what safety fudge factors you might wish to apply in the real world use of the POH numbers…'
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAO 20.7.4 also requires take-off and landing climb weight limits. I have just paid $ 491.06 for my brand new manual that looks very much like the $70.00 one I bought a couple of years ago. It only tells me what the max. Rate of climb is at MTOW at different height and temperatures. No way of working out what weight reduction I need to calculate the 6% or 3.2%. Some month ago I hand delivered a letter to Mike Toller requesting information on how to calculate. Eventually I got a letter back stating I could sent my old CASA P Charts to CASA for their acceptance and then incorporate them in the new Manual. And then get that approved by CASA. The 'old FM' already referred to the POH for a lot of things. When this mess first got mooted I understood that the C of R holder could decide on what manual s/he would keep, as long as ALL the safety information was there. I thought I could keep my old FM in conjunction with the POH. Somewhere the story changed and now I am NOT ALLOWED to keep the old FM but should / must incorporate data from it into the new manual. In addition CASA stated that when the new Part 91 replaces CAO 20.7.4 only the POH information will be necessary. Will they change the aerodrome design criteria and only permit flat country around an airport? Do the hills know they will have to move?
I'd be interested to hear how our cousins in the US calculate this.
I'd be interested to hear how our cousins in the US calculate this.
That's a very important letter that you have from CASA, I Fly. I'd like to get a copy.
I actually enjoyed calculating the climb gradients for my airplane - the good news was that mine complied with CAO 20.7.4.
I wonder what response I'd get if I followed that letter up asking for exact instructions on how to do a Cessna 150 AFM under the new rules. I bet that, even if I got a straight answer, it would be a lot different than the way it's being practiced.
I actually enjoyed calculating the climb gradients for my airplane - the good news was that mine complied with CAO 20.7.4.
I wonder what response I'd get if I followed that letter up asking for exact instructions on how to do a Cessna 150 AFM under the new rules. I bet that, even if I got a straight answer, it would be a lot different than the way it's being practiced.
Moderator
The problem with the standard US manuals is that they have no interest in the CAOs and generally present unfactored (ie raw distance) data .... the next problem is that the average punter has difficulty in knowing just what the status is for the particular manual which he/she might pick up from the flying school ...
I can only suggest a degree of conservatism chaps ... lest you be called to account for your calculations at the subsequent enquiry ... which hopefully won't be a coronial ...
I can only suggest a degree of conservatism chaps ... lest you be called to account for your calculations at the subsequent enquiry ... which hopefully won't be a coronial ...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john_t
You don't happen to have any of the old "P"charts for the DC3, 4, 6 or 7 and perhaps the Lockheed 1049.
There must have been one for the Viscount and Electra too ??
You don't happen to have any of the old "P"charts for the DC3, 4, 6 or 7 and perhaps the Lockheed 1049.
There must have been one for the Viscount and Electra too ??
Moderator
Gaunty,
I certainly have somewhere under the dustpiles and assorted detritus DC3 and probably DC4 charts ... pity I never finished the 3 endorsement ... at one stage I was hoping to do a 2 endorsement ...... all a fading memory now ....
The Connie guys at Bankstown probably have some data for their bird ...
The "Goose" was a bit later on in the certification system and had more conventional data ... I probably still have some of my AN ops manual data somewhere ... or are you talking the really old Electra ? ...
I would be very surprised if Centaurus didn't have some Viscount data .. he flew them for some time when he was in the RAAF as I recall ... and he is a wonderful source for data on just about any pilot type subject you can think of ....
I certainly have somewhere under the dustpiles and assorted detritus DC3 and probably DC4 charts ... pity I never finished the 3 endorsement ... at one stage I was hoping to do a 2 endorsement ...... all a fading memory now ....
The Connie guys at Bankstown probably have some data for their bird ...
The "Goose" was a bit later on in the certification system and had more conventional data ... I probably still have some of my AN ops manual data somewhere ... or are you talking the really old Electra ? ...
I would be very surprised if Centaurus didn't have some Viscount data .. he flew them for some time when he was in the RAAF as I recall ... and he is a wonderful source for data on just about any pilot type subject you can think of ....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern NSW
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Hauler
It is with some trepidation that I question your interpretation of 20.7.4, my good friend, but the way I read it you don't have to apply the 1.25 factor to the manufacturer's data - it's a one thing or the other type rule.
djpil
I doubt that the intention is that everybody has to calculate climb perfomance data to comply with 20.7.4. I believe that is a certification requirement, so it would be a surprise if your aircraft did not comply. In other words, if it achieves Aust certification, you can take it as read that it meets these requirements. Can anyone confirm this?
It is with some trepidation that I question your interpretation of 20.7.4, my good friend, but the way I read it you don't have to apply the 1.25 factor to the manufacturer's data - it's a one thing or the other type rule.
djpil
I doubt that the intention is that everybody has to calculate climb perfomance data to comply with 20.7.4. I believe that is a certification requirement, so it would be a surprise if your aircraft did not comply. In other words, if it achieves Aust certification, you can take it as read that it meets these requirements. Can anyone confirm this?