Management .........?
If you knew anything about Qantas and it's promulgation of documentation then you would know that the company supplied documentation is the only reference to be used by pilots. Company manuals and Jeppesen supplied info only for operational requirements. No need to be a smart arse. There was specific oil consumption and minimums published for the classic 737 but not the NG. If this is anything like the enroute LDR calculations changes then there will be memos standing orders and intams to totally confuse everyone and in six months they will back peddle.

Non conformances SHOULD be captured during an audit or a surveillance as part of the regular activities of the airworthiness surveyors, but often NOT.

They know full well that it's the advance notification that prompts operators to check their books and get their houses in order in time for the check that is the main driver for compliance.

In the end, operators ARE self regulating, and policing of compliance is difficult at best.
What to do about it, but what's fair as well?

Sorry SRM, I suggest you keep reading the new regulations and the associated CASA guidance material.

Pilot Maintenance training may be carried out by a Part 145 Maintenance Organisation OR a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (Aviation Australia for example).

The purpose of the training is to impart the knowledge and skill necessary to carry out the maintenance. The regulation does not specify the level and scope of the training. This will depend on the type of maintenance for which the pilot or the flight engineer is being authorised and the prior knowledge and skill of the individual in relation to carrying out the maintenance. The training may need to include both theoretical and practical elements or just practical. If a pilot or flight engineer currently holds the privilege to carry out a particular maintenance, the scope of required training for the maintenance may be minimum.

The training may be carried out by either:
 an AMO that holds the privileges to carry out the maintenance; or
 a maintenance training organisation approved under Part 147 that is approved to provide training for the maintenance; on the relevant aircraft type.

After the required training, the pilot or the flight engineer must be assessed by the AMO or the maintenance training organisation for competency. Before the CAMO issues an authorisation under regulation 42.630 for a particular maintenance, the CAMO must ensure the pilot or the flight engineer holds written statement from the AMO or the maintenance training organisation to
verify that the pilot or flight engineer is competent to carry out the maintenance. Under regulation 42.660, the CAMO is required keep a copy of the statement for 2 years after the authorisation ceases to be in force.

MP,

All good policy, except None of this training is being provided to Pilots...

[QUOTE][If none of these documents exist because CASA has not approved the changes,we ask that CASA ground the Qantas fleet of 738 aircraft until such time as the previous system of maintenance are restored and corrective actions taken to complete any maintenance that may have been neglected/QUOTE]

Steve,

I agree with the sentiment, but I think that CASA will feel that your request is too much to ask. I think you might do better with a more "middle ground" approach. More to the point, they will do nothing of substance when pushed to the front Of the crowd.
On the other hand, it might be said that the "if you don't ask, you don't get" approach might yield something of value.

Yes Aero, we tossed up over the final ask and decided that we better take the second hand car advert approach. Always ask for more than the price you would be willing to accept.


Thnx MP for the post. Wondering how many Pilots reading this hold the necessary approval for maintenance after receiving the appropriate training???

MP you are correct.

The document covers a lot more than you or I have mentioned.

As it stands at the moment and as far as I am aware, there has been NO training provided to Pilots.

This being the case then Pilots are no longer permitted to carry out ANY maintenance as I have previously stated, if they do then penalties apply!

Look at MAS ,the minister gave MAS 2 days to come up with report regarding incident of their plane.All it take one incident and passengers number reported drop by 25%.

The Star online
Netizens split over MAS incident.

Venubalan Rajaram said the incidents could be due to sheer coincidence or other factors. “Could it be due to low employee morale, complacency and incompetence at MAS’ repair and maintenance division? Or inferior quality parts and skipped processes to help meet the struggling financial bottom line?”

Dan Capper offered this perspective: “So five incidents, three relatively minor, out of how many flights exactly? Not bad luck or anything, probably comparable to any airline around the world actually.”

What netizens agreed upon was the need for stringent aircraft maintenance, with the incidents needing to be taken as a wake-up call for the highest professional standards to be employed in aircraft maintenance.

SRM and others:

Correct. Pilots are not allowed to touch anything. Circuit breakers, lightbulbs - almost anything.

It seems silly, but as with everything aviation a little knowledge can often be a very dangerous thing and a lot worse than no knowledge at all.

And that is strangely enough why most pilots have the GREATEST respect for Engineers, because it is a very rare pilot who has not been saved from huge embarrassment (or worse) by Engineers.

Pilots, a jet, a lightbulb and a crash
 

FL 401, an L1011 that crashed into the Florida Everglades. Complete hull loss, 99 dead, and one of the causal factors - Pilots trying to change a bulb for which they had not been trained for the task. Starting to sound familiar?
Take a look at Training Inadequacies Event Number 3:

http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_jan91.pdf

People are forgetting something, and that is this; In our aviation industry there are both outcome based and prescriptive compliance. There are processes and procedures that an organisation can implement of its own accord so as to attain compliance, however there are still prescriptive processes and procedures that are set by manufacturers and regulators which must be followed so as to attain and maintain compliance. What has occurred at QF in this instance is going to be a very interesting case to follow.

Steve, well done with the Observation letter sent to the Skull, and the FOI request you sent. Good luck on both counts. I have no doubt that both of these organisations will be feeling somewhat uncomfortable at the moment with how this is unfolding. It would appear that yet another half baked money saving decision that has been poorly rolled out has backfired. And as for CASA, well, say no more.

FOOTNOTE: I trust the Miniscules department, as well as Senators Xenophon and Fawcett are taking a cursory interest in this and the Virgin ATR incident?

Ladies and Gents,


Regarding this oil fiasco, everybody on this forum has been quoting min/max oil figures, oil consumption figures etc, etc.


As oil is the lifeblood of YOUR engine, do you really trust what the oil quantity gauge is telling you, or do you trust what your engineer is telling you? Is that oil gauge reading min 16 or full 18 correct and exact??? We have been caught out before with faulty oil gauges!!!


The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap. Easy as pie to check on a pilots walkaround, just open the oil fill access door and voila, the oil sightglass is right there staring you in the face. If you can't see oil in the sightglass, I'd be screaming for an engineer, no matter what that bloody gauge tells me upstairs!!!


McHale.

Ah you know what they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Yes Capt. you can easily open the access panel and check the sight glass to tell if there is oil in the tank. Well sometimes you can.


That physical check must be done between 5 and 30 minutes after engine shutdown otherwise the oil will likely have crept back into cavities in the oil system and read incorrectly.


Your well intentioned post is an absolute demonstration of the whole issue at play here. No Pilot or Engineer should follow your, or my instructions on how to service or check engine oil levels. This needs to be taught properly and recorded as per the Regs. I only wish the numpties out at Qantas could understand this.

Some sightglasses are discoloured. Common knowledge to those in the know - the blokes who top them up daily. So, a discoloured sightglass gives the appearance of full oil - until you add oil and it subtly changes appearance. And that's in full daylight, not by the light of the pathetic little LED keyring torch i've seen some pilots do a walkaround with at night.

A little knowledge is indeed a VERY dangerous thing.

Opening the oil panel and checking the oil level is considered a maintenance action.

Undocumented maintenance WILL cancel the CRS.

Even if I was a LAME turned pilot, I don't have tools or a ladder. The only oil checking I do is on a display. And +1 on sightglasses. All of my life I have been checking them, on boilers, machine tools, various internal combustion things. They are routinely stained and can easily lead the untrained astray.

Steve, Monster, SRM and Austro.....,


Indeed, you are all correct. My post was not meant to lead people astray. Submitted perhaps out of frustration with a system (in my view) that is total madness. Apologies.


McHale.

Capt your post was a really good one. It helped highlight the extent of some of the problems.

You are a very game QF pilot if you think it's a good idea to open an engine panel and carry out a physical oil check. If any half decent LAME sees you doing it the $hit will hit the fan in a big way I can promise you. There's a list of CASA regs and QF policies you've just broken and you no longer have a valid CRS so your aircraft is not airworthy. And don't forget to smile as you are being filmed on almost every Australian domestic ramp the whole time.

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).

LED torches? Try these guys: DealeXtreme - Cool Gadgets at the Right Price - DX Free Shipping Worldwide

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).:rolleyes:

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
  

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.

Thanks Nassensteins Monster & all, I'll have a look at the LED Lensers,

Not as bright as the lithium battery torches but I guess it'll have to do.

Thanks

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. :ugh:

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?