Pilots may fly solo over safety checks
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG
I was wondering when you'd pop up! Good to hear from you on this topic again.
And again, the current regulations do not comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices - therefore they are deficient. I know you don't like to hear it but if Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention then it is obliged to comply with the regulations . At this point in time, CARs 1988 do not and hopefully we will be able to rectify this deficiency through the current reg rewrite - rather than enshrine it.
Cheers!
I was wondering when you'd pop up! Good to hear from you on this topic again.
And again, the current regulations do not comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices - therefore they are deficient. I know you don't like to hear it but if Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention then it is obliged to comply with the regulations . At this point in time, CARs 1988 do not and hopefully we will be able to rectify this deficiency through the current reg rewrite - rather than enshrine it.
Cheers!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings AN LAME, and likewise it's good to hear from you, although I am surprised you have been fairly quiet this time. 
How have you been?
Indeed you are correct! However, because they are deficient in a few select areas, it does not mean the deficiency extends through to all of the regs. This deficency does not include wether LAME's must carry out pre-flights or not. May I suggest you read the ICAO report on their audit of Australia which was carried out in 1999. Nothing in there about it. (Although there are a few other interesting things in there)
Cheers Mate.
GTG!
How have you been?
And again, the current regulations do not comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices - therefore they are deficient. I know you don't like to hear it but if Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention then it is obliged to comply with the regulations . At this point in time, CARs 1988 do not and hopefully we will be able to rectify this deficiency through the current reg rewrite - rather than enshrine it.
Cheers Mate.
GTG!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been biting my tongue trying to give others an opportunity to express their thoughts!
And you are correct. Not all the regulations are deficient . But we are going to have to agree to disagree on the Transit Inspection.
Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4.3.2 states that thepilot must be satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy. To determine airworthiness, an inspection must be carried out. 'Inspection' is a maintenance function and must be carried out by an appropriately qualified Annex 1 person. But you know all that and I'm sure are ready with a reply to state your psotion on the other side of the argument.
Cheers!
PS Have you got a URL for the Audit report?
And you are correct. Not all the regulations are deficient . But we are going to have to agree to disagree on the Transit Inspection.
Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4.3.2 states that thepilot must be satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy. To determine airworthiness, an inspection must be carried out. 'Inspection' is a maintenance function and must be carried out by an appropriately qualified Annex 1 person. But you know all that and I'm sure are ready with a reply to state your psotion on the other side of the argument.
Cheers!
PS Have you got a URL for the Audit report?
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeldomFixit,
Is there a rule that says that the properly trained and authorised person who performs and certifies the pre-departure inspection is not allowed to then get into the aeroplane and fly it?
Is there a rule that says that a pilot is not allowed to receive training to correctly perform pre-departure inspections?
Why can't a properly trained and suitably authorised pilot conduct a pre-departure inspection and then certify that they have completed it?
The training required to be able to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems is essentially irrelevant. No one is asking for permission to train and authorise pilots to swap a donk between sectors at some desolate outback strip. This is about pre-departure inspections. Pilots will not be authorised to fix anything, merely to conduct an inspection to identify if anything needs fixing.
Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour.
From the original article :
What is this “international standard”? Where is the rule that says that a LAME must perform a pre-departure inspection before an international flight? Having been properly trained and authorised, I have on numerous occasions conducted and certified pre-departure inspections prior to scheduled international passenger flights – some of which were also the aircraft’s first flight of the day. Was this illegal?
SeldomFixit,
Please explain what you mean by, "...ethically entitled to perform the duties of the other." I am concerned that you seem to be speaking more in terms of an industrial relations demarcation dispute rather than anything to do with safety.
Is there a rule that says that the properly trained and authorised person who performs and certifies the pre-departure inspection is not allowed to then get into the aeroplane and fly it?
Is there a rule that says that a pilot is not allowed to receive training to correctly perform pre-departure inspections?
Why can't a properly trained and suitably authorised pilot conduct a pre-departure inspection and then certify that they have completed it?
The training required to be able to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems is essentially irrelevant. No one is asking for permission to train and authorise pilots to swap a donk between sectors at some desolate outback strip. This is about pre-departure inspections. Pilots will not be authorised to fix anything, merely to conduct an inspection to identify if anything needs fixing.
Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour.
From the original article :
International standards require a licensed engineer to check every plane before flight, according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but the changes would mean a lower standard domestically.
SeldomFixit,
Please explain what you mean by, "...ethically entitled to perform the duties of the other." I am concerned that you seem to be speaking more in terms of an industrial relations demarcation dispute rather than anything to do with safety.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.80
In answer to your question:
What is this “international standard”? Where is the rule that says that a LAME must perform a pre-departure inspection before an international flight?
I suggest you re-read AN LAME's post.
With regards to your statement: "Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour."
Its the LAME's part in the safety chain we currently enjoy.
Conversly why have highly qualified pilots sitting on flight decks all day long watching A/Ps fly the aircraft.
My arguement is why let CASA reduce the level of safety we have simply to satisfy the commercial whims of the airlines so that the executives can push their noses further into the caviar.
At the end of the day, safety is not a commodity that can be traded for financial gains.
In answer to your question:
What is this “international standard”? Where is the rule that says that a LAME must perform a pre-departure inspection before an international flight?
I suggest you re-read AN LAME's post.
With regards to your statement: "Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour."
Its the LAME's part in the safety chain we currently enjoy.
Conversly why have highly qualified pilots sitting on flight decks all day long watching A/Ps fly the aircraft.
My arguement is why let CASA reduce the level of safety we have simply to satisfy the commercial whims of the airlines so that the executives can push their noses further into the caviar.
At the end of the day, safety is not a commodity that can be traded for financial gains.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK
That is illegal by any stretch of the imagination.
Could you kindly put a CAIR report in on yourself.
He can. He is suitably trained and authorised if he is qualified to the same level as an ICAO Annex 1 person, i.e. he is an appropriately qualified LAME under the Australian CARs.
I have on numerous occasions conducted and certified pre-departure inspections prior to scheduled international passenger flights – some of which were also the aircraft’s first flight of the day.
Could you kindly put a CAIR report in on yourself.
Why can't a properly trained and suitably authorised pilot conduct a pre-departure inspection and then certify that they have completed it?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Flogsweinerfasten
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more gravy?
I couldn't agree more, AN LAME and Mr Seldomfixit...the pre-flight inspection is all yours, dudes. It only breeds resentment when I have to point out burnt-out landing lights or missing static wicks, anyway.
The envy is obvious when they enter the cockpit, dripping wet and cold, to see me sitting on my fat @rse, eating my pre-departure snacks. My hands are heavily un-calloused and have never seen a hard days work, well, not apart from... er um, you know...
We: do less work, get more pay and bang more quim than our greasier, un-washed brethren at the other end of the service interphone so WHY SHOULD THEY SHARE THEIR WALK-AROUND WITH US???
Some of the mechanics like to do the ruff 'n' tuff routine, like they own the cockpit and are just lending it to us for a while. I usually get out of the way, and go laugh about it in the galley with the chicks.
Walk-arounds? Mine is comprised of standing at the end of the stairs and counting how many engines and engineers I can see while I have a smoke and send some SMSs off to the ladies I plan to visit on my overnight.
I'm too lazy to work up a typical pilot's ego, but if I weren't, it would be matched only by the engineer's "attitude".
PS Is a CAIR Report like an ATM Machine? Or a PIN Number Number??
The envy is obvious when they enter the cockpit, dripping wet and cold, to see me sitting on my fat @rse, eating my pre-departure snacks. My hands are heavily un-calloused and have never seen a hard days work, well, not apart from... er um, you know...
We: do less work, get more pay and bang more quim than our greasier, un-washed brethren at the other end of the service interphone so WHY SHOULD THEY SHARE THEIR WALK-AROUND WITH US???
Some of the mechanics like to do the ruff 'n' tuff routine, like they own the cockpit and are just lending it to us for a while. I usually get out of the way, and go laugh about it in the galley with the chicks.
Walk-arounds? Mine is comprised of standing at the end of the stairs and counting how many engines and engineers I can see while I have a smoke and send some SMSs off to the ladies I plan to visit on my overnight.
I'm too lazy to work up a typical pilot's ego, but if I weren't, it would be matched only by the engineer's "attitude".
PS Is a CAIR Report like an ATM Machine? Or a PIN Number Number??
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gravy,
A very entertaining post! You sound very worldly.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that I enjoy doing pre-departure inspections - for all the reasons you mention. Of course I would rather sit inside in air-conditioned comfort and let others do the dirty work. Particularly if they are so keen to do it.
But I see nothing wrong with the idea of a properly trained and appropriately authorised pilot performing and certifying pre-departure inspections - irrespective of whether the subsequent flight is domestic or international.
To be clear, I am not talking about the long-range, low-cycle aircraft like B747s and B777s. For those aircraft the sectors are so long, the cycles are so low, and their destination ports are so well served by third-party maintenance organisations that there is no logical reason why you would want to use up a long-haul pilot's valuable duty time performing a pre-departure inspection. Rather, I am speaking about F100s, B737s, BAe 146s and similar.
Bus Tie Breaker,
I agree with you – I don’t know why. I am sure we could reduce the number of pilots in most aircraft by at least one – maybe more.
I don’t understand why allowing a properly trained and authorised pilot to conduct and certify a pre-departure inspection would be a reduction in safety. Pilots are usually trained to do pre-departure inspections by an engineer. Are you suggesting that the training provided by the engineer is sub-standard? As Aunty Pauline once said, “Please explain?”
AN LAME,
I am genuinely intrigued.
So that I can fill in the CAIR report correctly, perhaps you might be able to advise precisely which rule has been broken, and provide a quotation? I guess you would have to quote the INTERNATIONAL rule, since you say this is an INTERNATIONAL requirement?
I was of the understanding that I had been properly trained and authorised to conduct pre-departure inspections - irrespective of the aircraft’s destination. The approved operations manual and approved maintenance manual does not mention any difference in the pre-departure inspection requirements for an international flight compared with a domestic flight. I could name ten pilots who conducted their own pre-departure inspections today prior to making an international flight. Are you saying that all of them are breaking an international rule?
About that ICAO Annex 6 stuff - which VOLUME and EDITION are you looking at?
Are you suggesting that it is an ICAO requirement that the person who conducts the pre-departure inspection must be a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, or are you suggesting that there is a requirement in the Australian CARs? Precisely which rule are you referring to?
The aircraft must be inspected – no problem. The person inspecting the aircraft must have been trained to inspect the aircraft – no problem. So where’s the hard bit?
A very entertaining post! You sound very worldly.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that I enjoy doing pre-departure inspections - for all the reasons you mention. Of course I would rather sit inside in air-conditioned comfort and let others do the dirty work.
Particularly if they are so keen to do it. But I see nothing wrong with the idea of a properly trained and appropriately authorised pilot performing and certifying pre-departure inspections - irrespective of whether the subsequent flight is domestic or international.
To be clear, I am not talking about the long-range, low-cycle aircraft like B747s and B777s. For those aircraft the sectors are so long, the cycles are so low, and their destination ports are so well served by third-party maintenance organisations that there is no logical reason why you would want to use up a long-haul pilot's valuable duty time performing a pre-departure inspection. Rather, I am speaking about F100s, B737s, BAe 146s and similar.
Bus Tie Breaker,
Conversly why have highly qualified pilots sitting on flight decks all day long watching A/Ps fly the aircraft.
…why let CASA reduce the level of safety…
AN LAME,
That is illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Could you kindly put a CAIR report in on yourself.
So that I can fill in the CAIR report correctly, perhaps you might be able to advise precisely which rule has been broken, and provide a quotation? I guess you would have to quote the INTERNATIONAL rule, since you say this is an INTERNATIONAL requirement?
I was of the understanding that I had been properly trained and authorised to conduct pre-departure inspections - irrespective of the aircraft’s destination. The approved operations manual and approved maintenance manual does not mention any difference in the pre-departure inspection requirements for an international flight compared with a domestic flight. I could name ten pilots who conducted their own pre-departure inspections today prior to making an international flight. Are you saying that all of them are breaking an international rule?
About that ICAO Annex 6 stuff - which VOLUME and EDITION are you looking at?
He can. He is suitably trained and authorised if he is qualified to the same level as an ICAO Annex 1 person, i.e. he is an appropriately qualified LAME under the Australian CARs.
The aircraft must be inspected – no problem. The person inspecting the aircraft must have been trained to inspect the aircraft – no problem. So where’s the hard bit?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right BIK. It is an international requiremetn. But at the end of the day an appropriately trained and qualified person, who may be a pilot, must be trained to the same level of competency as...you guessed it, a LAME. If that person is you then congratulations, you've successfully mastered two of the most demanding technical occupations in Aviation. If not, then you are not appropriately qualified, whether your Ops Manual or MCM syas so or not! It just means that you probably had our approval issued from CASA Brisbane or Sydney.
ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4 is the reference.
This statement simply illustrates your ignorance for one, of the effect that high cycles have on an airframe, and two that your argument is based purely on cost.
It is the understandable ignorance that you are exhibiting that is contributing to a less safe RPT environment.
ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4 is the reference.
To be clear, I am not talking about the long-range, low-cycle aircraft like B747s and B777s. For those aircraft the sectors are so long, the cycles are so low, and their destination ports are so well served by third-party maintenance organisations that there is no logical reason why you would want to use up a long-haul pilot's valuable duty time performing a pre-departure inspection. Rather, I am speaking about F100s, B737s, BAe 146s and similar.
It is the understandable ignorance that you are exhibiting that is contributing to a less safe RPT environment.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
I fear that I shall be doomed to wallow in my alleged ignorance until I figure this one out.
I am not a LAME. No part of CASA has had anything to do with the approval or the regulatory oversight because the operation is not in CASA’s jurisdiction. That’s why I am so very curious to learn precisely where this “must be a LAME” requirement comes from, and to learn the precise terms of the requirement.
If it is an international requirement then wouldn’t it be a requirement in all ICAO countries? It is certainly not the modus operandi in the numerous ICAO countries that I have visited recently.
I don’t have access to a copy of ICAO Annex 6 where I am, but I might be able to find an internet version if you could tell me the VOLUME and EDITION you are looking at. You should be able to find the VOLUME and EDITION on the front page – like this. Alternately, perhaps you might post a quotation – or email me if you would prefer.
When you say :
precisely what do you mean?
Do you mean that the person must be a LAME and must hold an aircraft maintenance engineer licence? Do you mean that the person must be trained in all skill areas that a LAME is required to be trained in?
Is it really necessary to train a pilot how to bleed a hydraulic system, or how to change a brake unit, or how to rig an aileron, just so that they can be approved to conduct a pre-departure inspection? (as long as those are not items required during a pre-departure inspection
)
Or do you mean that the person must be “trained to the same level of competency as…a LAME” in the specific skills that are required to conduct a pre-departure inspection? That would seem like a very sensible idea, and it is my understanding that that is precisely the level of training that I, and many thousands of other pilots, have received in order to be approved to conduct pre-departure inspections.
Maybe that's the kind of training the anonymous CASA mouthpiece was talking about?
I think I am aware of the effect that high cycles has on an aircraft. The point I make is based on cost and on practicality, and for that I do not apologise. Modern high-cycle short-haul aircraft are designed to operate without requiring engineering attention at every turnaround – and that design philosophy is based on cost and practicality. I know you will want to wave the safety flag, but that is only to be expected in these situations.
Do you expect to have a LAME based at Olympic Dam to inspect airline aircraft that land there? What about the Dash 8 that goes into Moree - would you have a LAME sitting there all day waiting for the aircraft? Maybe you would fancy being based at Cobar so that you could do the inspections on any SAABs that might need to divert there if Broken Hill was fogged in? Perhaps you would have a LAME fly around with each and every aircraft so that he was able to do an inspection each time the aircraft landed? Perhaps B737s really should have had a flight engineer station? (although only the Fat Man would have bought into that one! )
It doesn't happen that way now because there is no need.
Do Dash 8s, B737s, F100s, B717s and BAe146s really need a LAME to attend to them 12 times a day? I don't think they do.
I fear that I shall be doomed to wallow in my alleged ignorance until I figure this one out.
I am not a LAME. No part of CASA has had anything to do with the approval or the regulatory oversight because the operation is not in CASA’s jurisdiction. That’s why I am so very curious to learn precisely where this “must be a LAME” requirement comes from, and to learn the precise terms of the requirement.
If it is an international requirement then wouldn’t it be a requirement in all ICAO countries? It is certainly not the modus operandi in the numerous ICAO countries that I have visited recently.
I don’t have access to a copy of ICAO Annex 6 where I am, but I might be able to find an internet version if you could tell me the VOLUME and EDITION you are looking at. You should be able to find the VOLUME and EDITION on the front page – like this. Alternately, perhaps you might post a quotation – or email me if you would prefer.
When you say :
But at the end of the day an appropriately trained and qualified person, who may be a pilot, must be trained to the same level of competency as...you guessed it, a LAME.
Do you mean that the person must be a LAME and must hold an aircraft maintenance engineer licence? Do you mean that the person must be trained in all skill areas that a LAME is required to be trained in?
Is it really necessary to train a pilot how to bleed a hydraulic system, or how to change a brake unit, or how to rig an aileron, just so that they can be approved to conduct a pre-departure inspection? (as long as those are not items required during a pre-departure inspection
)Or do you mean that the person must be “trained to the same level of competency as…a LAME” in the specific skills that are required to conduct a pre-departure inspection? That would seem like a very sensible idea, and it is my understanding that that is precisely the level of training that I, and many thousands of other pilots, have received in order to be approved to conduct pre-departure inspections.
Maybe that's the kind of training the anonymous CASA mouthpiece was talking about?
CASA said pilots would only pick up the extra duties where they had received enough additional training.
(from this thread's first post)
(from this thread's first post)
Do you expect to have a LAME based at Olympic Dam to inspect airline aircraft that land there? What about the Dash 8 that goes into Moree - would you have a LAME sitting there all day waiting for the aircraft? Maybe you would fancy being based at Cobar so that you could do the inspections on any SAABs that might need to divert there if Broken Hill was fogged in? Perhaps you would have a LAME fly around with each and every aircraft so that he was able to do an inspection each time the aircraft landed? Perhaps B737s really should have had a flight engineer station? (although only the Fat Man would have bought into that one!
)It doesn't happen that way now because there is no need.
Do Dash 8s, B737s, F100s, B717s and BAe146s really need a LAME to attend to them 12 times a day? I don't think they do.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK
The reference you are after straight from it's cover page
Operation of Aircraft
Annex 6
to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation
This edition incorporates all amendments adopted by the Council prior to 10 March 2001 and supersedes, on 1 November 2001, all previous editions of Part I of Annex 6.
For information regarding the applicability of the Standards and Recommended Practices, see Foreword. International Civil Aviation Organization
Eighth Edition
July 2001
Part I
International Commercial
Air Transport — Aeroplanes
The examples of remote ports you give is quite right. I don't think that any fair minded person would insist that LAMEs be positioned at every minor regional port in the country.
The concern that engineers have at the moment is that the proposed legislation will allow the major airlines to, in an extreme example, have only one engineering port in the entire country and rely on the lack of any other engineering ports to allow them to fly all day every day without LAMEs looking at them.
In addition to this, the lack of engineering support at these ports will put pressure on flight crew to carry defects rather than report them due to the inordinate delays getting a LAME in from another location. This already happens at VB. So it is as much a big picture issue.
Most LAMEs would, I believe, be comfortable with an Engineering Transit Inspection every two or three legs as a responsible cost effective method of determining the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft
The reference you are after straight from it's cover page
Operation of Aircraft
Annex 6
to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation
This edition incorporates all amendments adopted by the Council prior to 10 March 2001 and supersedes, on 1 November 2001, all previous editions of Part I of Annex 6.
For information regarding the applicability of the Standards and Recommended Practices, see Foreword. International Civil Aviation Organization
Eighth Edition
July 2001
Part I
International Commercial
Air Transport — Aeroplanes
The examples of remote ports you give is quite right. I don't think that any fair minded person would insist that LAMEs be positioned at every minor regional port in the country.
The concern that engineers have at the moment is that the proposed legislation will allow the major airlines to, in an extreme example, have only one engineering port in the entire country and rely on the lack of any other engineering ports to allow them to fly all day every day without LAMEs looking at them.
In addition to this, the lack of engineering support at these ports will put pressure on flight crew to carry defects rather than report them due to the inordinate delays getting a LAME in from another location. This already happens at VB. So it is as much a big picture issue.
Most LAMEs would, I believe, be comfortable with an Engineering Transit Inspection every two or three legs as a responsible cost effective method of determining the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
No probs! 
I won't worry about it. We went through the details last time, and as mentioned earlier, we agree to disagree.
It took me a while to find the link again (damn CASA website, very un-userfriendly!) but here it is.
ICAO Audit report
Apoglogies for the delay in responding, I had trouble finding the link and I had aircraft to turn-around!
Cheers Mate!
GTG!
But we are going to have to agree to disagree on the Transit Inspection.
Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4.3.2 states that thepilot must be satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy. To determine airworthiness, an inspection must be carried out. 'Inspection' is a maintenance function and must be carried out by an appropriately qualified Annex 1 person. But you know all that and I'm sure are ready with a reply to state your psotion on the other side of the argument.
PS Have you got a URL for the Audit report?
ICAO Audit report
Apoglogies for the delay in responding, I had trouble finding the link and I had aircraft to turn-around!
Cheers Mate!
GTG!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG
Thanks for the info. You're one of the lucky ones (having an aircraft to turnaround)
As faor CASA being user friendly - They're not happy until you're not happy!Cheers
GTG
I found it interesting that there were several instances of non compliance with ICAO SARPS which are not detailed in the report specifically in relation to Annex 1 and 6. Any idea where the Interim Report is? It seems to contain the specific findings and recommendations.
"Confidential Audit Final Report of The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia
7. ICAO SARPs Not Implemented
Several differences existing between ICAO Annexes 1, 6 and 8 and the Australian regulations were identified and remained not implemented by the time this report was prepared On the basis of Article 17 of the MOU signed between Australia and ICAO, the differences will be forwarded to the appropriate Sections of the Air Navigation Bureau for inclusion in the Supplements to the respective Annexes and will also be attached to the Summary Report."
The intrigue continues?!
Cheers
Thanks for the info. You're one of the lucky ones (having an aircraft to turnaround)
As faor CASA being user friendly - They're not happy until you're not happy!Cheers
GTG
I found it interesting that there were several instances of non compliance with ICAO SARPS which are not detailed in the report specifically in relation to Annex 1 and 6. Any idea where the Interim Report is? It seems to contain the specific findings and recommendations.
"Confidential Audit Final Report of The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia
7. ICAO SARPs Not Implemented
Several differences existing between ICAO Annexes 1, 6 and 8 and the Australian regulations were identified and remained not implemented by the time this report was prepared On the basis of Article 17 of the MOU signed between Australia and ICAO, the differences will be forwarded to the appropriate Sections of the Air Navigation Bureau for inclusion in the Supplements to the respective Annexes and will also be attached to the Summary Report."
The intrigue continues?!
Cheers
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(QUOTE)
Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour.
(ENDQUOTE)
Interesting analogy.
IF I have to go to Hospital, I sincerely hope that an eminent heart-surgeon takes MY pulse, and NOT the Bus Driver with a big ego who thinks he knows what to do.
Asking a LAME who is qualified to overhaul, repair, replace or modify an aircraft and its systems to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections all day would be like asking an eminent heart-surgeon to take people’s pulses – it’s simply a poor use of skilled labour.
(ENDQUOTE)
Interesting analogy.
IF I have to go to Hospital, I sincerely hope that an eminent heart-surgeon takes MY pulse, and NOT the Bus Driver with a big ego who thinks he knows what to do.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Flogsweinerfasten
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK and AN LAME, gravy says..........
..... get a room. You two pud-knockers need to work this issue out, the sexual tension is palatable.
Give it a smack, have a cry and a hug Ladies.
Now look what you've done... Uspet your mother.... you done made me post twice on the same topic which is against my principles.
What are my principles? Good question...
1. Sink Plenty of P!ss
B. Punish Plenty of Poon
3. Avoid Work Whichever Way aWailable
4. Did I mention Banging Beaucoup Beaver?
I just read a reference to a 3 strikes policy and am banking on being extended that privilege here. Thusly my Insidious, Insipid, Insouciant, Inspired, Instinctive, Insurgent, Intercensal and Insufferable Installments can continue Insofar as I have something Insightful to say, which is:
Regarding the long-range, low-cycle aircraft see:
Annex 69 to the Contention on
International Civil Aviation
This limited edition does not incorporate all amendments adopted by the Council prior or subsequent to 10 March 2001 and may or may not supersede, on 1 November 2001, all previous editions of Part I of Annex 6.
ICAO Ninth Edition, 3rd Division, 8th Battalion.
July 2001
Part IV
That should settle the issue. So you see? You're both right.
Give it a smack, have a cry and a hug Ladies.
Now look what you've done... Uspet your mother.... you done made me post twice on the same topic which is against my principles.
What are my principles? Good question...
1. Sink Plenty of P!ss
B. Punish Plenty of Poon
3. Avoid Work Whichever Way aWailable
4. Did I mention Banging Beaucoup Beaver?
I just read a reference to a 3 strikes policy and am banking on being extended that privilege here. Thusly my Insidious, Insipid, Insouciant, Inspired, Instinctive, Insurgent, Intercensal and Insufferable Installments can continue Insofar as I have something Insightful to say, which is:
Regarding the long-range, low-cycle aircraft see:
Annex 69 to the Contention on
International Civil Aviation
This limited edition does not incorporate all amendments adopted by the Council prior or subsequent to 10 March 2001 and may or may not supersede, on 1 November 2001, all previous editions of Part I of Annex 6.
ICAO Ninth Edition, 3rd Division, 8th Battalion.
July 2001
Part IV
That should settle the issue. So you see? You're both right.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gravy,
Another very entertaining post. Please keep ‘em coming – as long as it’s not contrary to your principles.
airsupport,
“Sincere hopes” are meaningless. What counts, both in medicine and in aviation, is MONEY.
If you have an effective demand (a desire, coupled with sufficient money and a willingness to pay) for an eminent heart-surgeon to take your pulse then that is what you shall have.
But you wont find that an eminent heart-surgeon will be taking your pulse in a government-run hospital – at least not at first. You wont even find that in a private hospital – unless you specifically request it and enter into an agreement to pay for it. What you will find is that an appropriately trained and qualified medical professional will take your pulse. If your pulse is not within certain parameters then a more highly trained and qualified medical professional will be called upon. The valuable time of highly skilled specialists is not squandered on routine tasks.
It’s just the same in aviation. A pilot, who has received appropriate training and who is suitably authorised, will conduct a pre-departure inspection. If that pilot finds anything that is not within acceptable parameters, or if there is an anomaly that is outside the skill level of the pilot’s training, then a more highly trained and qualified aviation specialist will be called upon.
If you have an effective demand for an aircraft that is operated with the greatest possible safety margins then that option is open to you – as long as you are prepared to pay for it. That is precisely the approach of many large corporations and high-worth individuals who choose to operate their own aircraft to standards far higher than the regulated minimums.
You could, for example, specify that your aircraft must be crewed by six pilots, eight engineers, three nurses and a doctor. You could specify that your aircraft must not operate at more than 75% of its maximum take-off weight. You could require that your 8,000 hour TBO engines are replaced with brand-new ones every 3,000 hours. You could decree that your aircraft will not land on any runway that is not at least four times as long as the aircraft’s demonstrated landing distance. You might decide that when a tyre, wheel and brake unit has done 15 landings you will replace them all with brand-new parts.
If that is what you want, and you are willing and able to pay, then no one is stopping you.
AN LAME,
Your place or mine?
Thanks for the text from the Annex 6 cover page. Unfortunately my efforts to find Annex 6 on the internet have been unsuccessful. Since you seem to have access to a copy, would you be able to scan Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4.3.2 and email it to me in JPG format at [email protected] ?
That’s a reasonable concern. But I think it comes down to the training and professionalism of the pilots, as well as the MEL procedures.
In companies I am familiar with the MEL procedures specify various different types of defect :
(a) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special operating procedures or any special maintenance action.
(b) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special operating procedures, but which requires special maintenance action prior to flight.
(c) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special maintenance action, but which requires special operating procedures.
(d) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown, but which requires both special operating procedures and special maintenance action prior to flight.
(e) A defect that grounds the aircraft until it is fixed (a “no-go” item).
I would expect a professional pilot to refuse to fly an aircraft with a “no-go” item. In the MELs I have viewed the vast majority of the “no-go” items are defects that I wouldn’t want to fly with anyway – even if the MEL did permit it.
If an aircraft has a “no-go” defect or a defect that requires special maintenance action then you need a LAME – simple as that. As an airline pilot in this situation it should not be your concern how or when a LAME will get to the aircraft.
But if an aircraft has a defect that is not a “no-go” item and that does not require special maintenance action, then in companies I am familiar with, the pilot in command will record the defect in the aircraft’s technical log, and then apply an “acceptable carried forward” procedure. Under this approved procedure, the pilot in command signs off the defect as “ACF” by recording the appropriate MEL reference in the aircraft technical log. The aircraft is then able to dispatch.
If the pilots discover a defect, either at or away from a company maintenance base, the options are :
(1) You MUST get a LAME because it is a “no-go” defect or because the defect requires special maintenance action; or,
(2) You don’t need a LAME and you enter the details of the defect and its MEL reference in the aircraft’s technical log.
All the pilot has to do is to decide which of these two situations applies - and I don’t think that’s too much pressure for a professional pilot to bear.
Another very entertaining post. Please keep ‘em coming – as long as it’s not contrary to your principles.
airsupport,
IF I have to go to Hospital, I sincerely hope that an eminent heart-surgeon takes MY pulse, and NOT the Bus Driver with a big ego who thinks he knows what to do.
If you have an effective demand (a desire, coupled with sufficient money and a willingness to pay) for an eminent heart-surgeon to take your pulse then that is what you shall have.
But you wont find that an eminent heart-surgeon will be taking your pulse in a government-run hospital – at least not at first. You wont even find that in a private hospital – unless you specifically request it and enter into an agreement to pay for it. What you will find is that an appropriately trained and qualified medical professional will take your pulse. If your pulse is not within certain parameters then a more highly trained and qualified medical professional will be called upon. The valuable time of highly skilled specialists is not squandered on routine tasks.
It’s just the same in aviation. A pilot, who has received appropriate training and who is suitably authorised, will conduct a pre-departure inspection. If that pilot finds anything that is not within acceptable parameters, or if there is an anomaly that is outside the skill level of the pilot’s training, then a more highly trained and qualified aviation specialist will be called upon.
If you have an effective demand for an aircraft that is operated with the greatest possible safety margins then that option is open to you – as long as you are prepared to pay for it. That is precisely the approach of many large corporations and high-worth individuals who choose to operate their own aircraft to standards far higher than the regulated minimums.
You could, for example, specify that your aircraft must be crewed by six pilots, eight engineers, three nurses and a doctor. You could specify that your aircraft must not operate at more than 75% of its maximum take-off weight. You could require that your 8,000 hour TBO engines are replaced with brand-new ones every 3,000 hours. You could decree that your aircraft will not land on any runway that is not at least four times as long as the aircraft’s demonstrated landing distance. You might decide that when a tyre, wheel and brake unit has done 15 landings you will replace them all with brand-new parts.
If that is what you want, and you are willing and able to pay, then no one is stopping you.
AN LAME,
Your place or mine?
Thanks for the text from the Annex 6 cover page. Unfortunately my efforts to find Annex 6 on the internet have been unsuccessful. Since you seem to have access to a copy, would you be able to scan Annex 6 Part 1 Chapter 4.3.2 and email it to me in JPG format at [email protected] ?
In addition to this, the lack of engineering support at these ports will put pressure on flight crew to carry defects rather than report them due to the inordinate delays getting a LAME in from another location.
In companies I am familiar with the MEL procedures specify various different types of defect :
(a) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special operating procedures or any special maintenance action.
(b) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special operating procedures, but which requires special maintenance action prior to flight.
(c) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown without any special maintenance action, but which requires special operating procedures.
(d) A defect with which the aircraft can be flown, but which requires both special operating procedures and special maintenance action prior to flight.
(e) A defect that grounds the aircraft until it is fixed (a “no-go” item).
I would expect a professional pilot to refuse to fly an aircraft with a “no-go” item. In the MELs I have viewed the vast majority of the “no-go” items are defects that I wouldn’t want to fly with anyway – even if the MEL did permit it.
If an aircraft has a “no-go” defect or a defect that requires special maintenance action then you need a LAME – simple as that. As an airline pilot in this situation it should not be your concern how or when a LAME will get to the aircraft.
But if an aircraft has a defect that is not a “no-go” item and that does not require special maintenance action, then in companies I am familiar with, the pilot in command will record the defect in the aircraft’s technical log, and then apply an “acceptable carried forward” procedure. Under this approved procedure, the pilot in command signs off the defect as “ACF” by recording the appropriate MEL reference in the aircraft technical log. The aircraft is then able to dispatch.
If the pilots discover a defect, either at or away from a company maintenance base, the options are :
(1) You MUST get a LAME because it is a “no-go” defect or because the defect requires special maintenance action; or,
(2) You don’t need a LAME and you enter the details of the defect and its MEL reference in the aircraft’s technical log.
All the pilot has to do is to decide which of these two situations applies - and I don’t think that’s too much pressure for a professional pilot to bear.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK,
That is the point.
Do you really want our Aviation Industry to end up like our Health Service?
These checks are to be done by different people, PURELY to save money.
What about safety implications?
In your own words, an LAME is "a more highly trained and qualified aviation specialist" than a Pilot.
So however you chose to twist words, the checks are to be done by less trained and qualified people, PURELY to save money.
Australia normally leads the World in Aviation Safety, why do we have to go down to the lowest common denominator.
Best regards,
"airsupport"
That is the point.
Do you really want our Aviation Industry to end up like our Health Service?
These checks are to be done by different people, PURELY to save money.
What about safety implications?
In your own words, an LAME is "a more highly trained and qualified aviation specialist" than a Pilot.
So however you chose to twist words, the checks are to be done by less trained and qualified people, PURELY to save money.
Australia normally leads the World in Aviation Safety, why do we have to go down to the lowest common denominator.
Best regards,
"airsupport"
Where is this heading?
If it is deemed acceptable for a pilot to determine airworthiness of an aircraft and release for any number of further flights in a 24-hour period, then it logically follows that it should also be acceptable for a pilot to determine the airworthiness of an aircraft before any flight over any period between scheduled servicing?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex
That will be the next step in the 'evolution'
BIK
There is already documented evidence of an airline flying a 737 into Kalgoorlie with a T/R unlocked light illuminated, calling Maintenance Watch about it, not INSPECTING the problem and leaving again, with the light still illuminated; of an F/O EADI blank on the ground in the same region 'miraculously' coming good only to fail 'on approach' into Perth; of a hand written note in the cockpit for the next crew that the PA was virtually unusable but it hadn't been put in the Log because it would 'ground' the aircraft.
So much for training and professionalism.
gravy
You're a credit to your profession.
That will be the next step in the 'evolution'
BIK
There is already documented evidence of an airline flying a 737 into Kalgoorlie with a T/R unlocked light illuminated, calling Maintenance Watch about it, not INSPECTING the problem and leaving again, with the light still illuminated; of an F/O EADI blank on the ground in the same region 'miraculously' coming good only to fail 'on approach' into Perth; of a hand written note in the cockpit for the next crew that the PA was virtually unusable but it hadn't been put in the Log because it would 'ground' the aircraft.
So much for training and professionalism.
gravy
You're a credit to your profession.
Last edited by AN LAME; 9th Sep 2002 at 00:12.