No RPT LAME requirement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No RPT LAME requirement
I am just wondering what RPT blokes think of the following excerpt from the proposed CASR 121A , i.e. no LAMEs on tarmac for preflight inspections or refuelling
'121A.140 Maintenance release requirements
(1) The operator of an aeroplane must not permit the aeroplane to be operated on a flight unless:
(a) the aeroplane is airworthy and serviceable; and
(b) the aeroplane has a valid certificate of airworthiness; and
(c) the aeroplane is configured with serviceable operational and emergency equipment necessary for the safe operation of the flight; and
(d) the aeroplane’s systems and equipment have been maintained in accordance with the AMP for the aeroplane; and
(e) subject to subregulations (2) and (3), a maintenance release has been issued for the aeroplane indicating that all necessary
maintenance has been carried out and the aeroplane has been returned to service.
(2) The operator must ensure that the maintenance release required under paragraph (1) (e) is:
(a) signed by a LAME; or
(b) if the aeroplane has undergone only fuelling or preflight checks in accordance with subregulation 121A. 160 (b) — signed by a LAME when the aeroplane is next at a place where an approved maintenance organisation that is authorised to carry out maintenance on the aeroplane is available.
(3) The operator must ensure that the maintenance release required under paragraph (1) (e) is signed by a LAME before the aeroplane commences a flight if:
(a) the AMP for the aeroplane has been developed using MSG
methods and requires specific maintenance inspections; or
(b) the aeroplane is to be used on an ETOPS or RVSM flight; or
(c) the flight is to be outside Australian territory.
121A.160 Who may carry out servicing and preventive maintenance
The head of aircraft maintenance control of the operator of an aeroplane must ensure that the fuelling and pre-flight check of the aeroplane is carried out:
(a) by an approved maintenance organisation; or
(b) if an approved maintenance organisation is not available at a place, by a pilot who has been appropriately trained and is authorised by the operator to carry out fuelling and pre-flight checks on that type of aeroplane.'
'121A.140 Maintenance release requirements
(1) The operator of an aeroplane must not permit the aeroplane to be operated on a flight unless:
(a) the aeroplane is airworthy and serviceable; and
(b) the aeroplane has a valid certificate of airworthiness; and
(c) the aeroplane is configured with serviceable operational and emergency equipment necessary for the safe operation of the flight; and
(d) the aeroplane’s systems and equipment have been maintained in accordance with the AMP for the aeroplane; and
(e) subject to subregulations (2) and (3), a maintenance release has been issued for the aeroplane indicating that all necessary
maintenance has been carried out and the aeroplane has been returned to service.
(2) The operator must ensure that the maintenance release required under paragraph (1) (e) is:
(a) signed by a LAME; or
(b) if the aeroplane has undergone only fuelling or preflight checks in accordance with subregulation 121A. 160 (b) — signed by a LAME when the aeroplane is next at a place where an approved maintenance organisation that is authorised to carry out maintenance on the aeroplane is available.
(3) The operator must ensure that the maintenance release required under paragraph (1) (e) is signed by a LAME before the aeroplane commences a flight if:
(a) the AMP for the aeroplane has been developed using MSG
methods and requires specific maintenance inspections; or
(b) the aeroplane is to be used on an ETOPS or RVSM flight; or
(c) the flight is to be outside Australian territory.
121A.160 Who may carry out servicing and preventive maintenance
The head of aircraft maintenance control of the operator of an aeroplane must ensure that the fuelling and pre-flight check of the aeroplane is carried out:
(a) by an approved maintenance organisation; or
(b) if an approved maintenance organisation is not available at a place, by a pilot who has been appropriately trained and is authorised by the operator to carry out fuelling and pre-flight checks on that type of aeroplane.'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I'm saying is they are containeed the in the CASR 121A Subpart M released 13/5/02. The strong word going around is that QF and DJ have lobbied upper CASA levels very hard to have these sub regs inserted, and despite internal resistance from the Maintenance Standards area, the command from above has been to insert them.
My question is, how many RPT pilots will be comfortable not having a LAME at the aircraft and as a consequence having to determine the airworthiness of that aircraft. And make no mistake, once this is implemented, you will find the number of Engineering bases will start to dwindle. Then the commercial pressure to meet the schedule will be placed squarely on the PIC wth absolutely minimal support from Engineering - and that being over a telephone.
Funnily enough, International Ops won't be affected, so as to appease ICAO. Sounds like two standards doesn't it, with Domestic the loser.
I hope all of you fellas realise the danger in this proposal
My question is, how many RPT pilots will be comfortable not having a LAME at the aircraft and as a consequence having to determine the airworthiness of that aircraft. And make no mistake, once this is implemented, you will find the number of Engineering bases will start to dwindle. Then the commercial pressure to meet the schedule will be placed squarely on the PIC wth absolutely minimal support from Engineering - and that being over a telephone.
Funnily enough, International Ops won't be affected, so as to appease ICAO. Sounds like two standards doesn't it, with Domestic the loser.
I hope all of you fellas realise the danger in this proposal
I don't see how it is operationally any different to the current regs. Plenty of times I would operate through an outport without LAME assistance - hey a walkaround & refuel isn't rocket science.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very expensive to have a highly qualified LAME lurking around a tarmac when he/she could be in the hangar knocking out chargable hours of labor. I know, that's how my place works.
Welcome to the new age of aviation.
Welcome to the new age of aviation.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go, sadly that is exactly why they will get away with it. 
The Airlines have obviously persuaded CASA to try to bring this in, PURELY to save money, not caring about any reduction in safety or delays to schedules, and what is happening here already?
Pilots are already going along with the idea.
The Airlines have obviously persuaded CASA to try to bring this in, PURELY to save money, not caring about any reduction in safety or delays to schedules, and what is happening here already?
Pilots are already going along with the idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard
That is not how it is with the current regs. The reason it DOES happen under the current regs is through the lack of training of CASA District Office AWIs in interpretation of those regs together with those regs being a piece of ambiguous cr@p. This then causes them to issue approvals which in fact contravene those regs.
Kanga767
Its also very expensive to have an FO sitting on his @arse holiding the PICs hand( and even though I'm a thickhead engineer, I have heard of CRM etc. Pity we don't get trained as welll as yourself). I only say this to try and get a message across to some of the more gungho of you flyboys.
I am intelligent enough to respect the work of others who carry out tasks that are not in my field of endeavour. Pity there are a few of you about who are unprofessional enough to not pay us the same courtesy.
airsupport you are excepted from this comment. However, it's not over till the fat lady sings!
For further interest, ICAO require a maintenance release to be issued before EVERY flight and that return to service must be certified by an ANNEx 1 person, i.e in the Australian civil system - by a LAME licenced on type. Hence CASA are being pressured to move away from an International Standard by the QF & DJ beancounters.
That is not how it is with the current regs. The reason it DOES happen under the current regs is through the lack of training of CASA District Office AWIs in interpretation of those regs together with those regs being a piece of ambiguous cr@p. This then causes them to issue approvals which in fact contravene those regs.
Kanga767
Its also very expensive to have an FO sitting on his @arse holiding the PICs hand( and even though I'm a thickhead engineer, I have heard of CRM etc. Pity we don't get trained as welll as yourself). I only say this to try and get a message across to some of the more gungho of you flyboys.
I am intelligent enough to respect the work of others who carry out tasks that are not in my field of endeavour. Pity there are a few of you about who are unprofessional enough to not pay us the same courtesy.
airsupport you are excepted from this comment. However, it's not over till the fat lady sings!
For further interest, ICAO require a maintenance release to be issued before EVERY flight and that return to service must be certified by an ANNEx 1 person, i.e in the Australian civil system - by a LAME licenced on type. Hence CASA are being pressured to move away from an International Standard by the QF & DJ beancounters.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ???
Age: 59
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA are already operating like this on ALL fleets (B777 has an etops check that MUST be carried out by a LAME). The mechanics have a Ramp Maint Approval (soon to be JAR66 "A" licence) and do all the turnaround/daily check items plus wheel/brake changes etc.
This is the thin end of the wedge and will not make for safer air travel.
This is the thin end of the wedge and will not make for safer air travel.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN,USA.
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the world of international competition;U.S. airlines have been operating this way for years. As a LAME,I put forward many of the same arguments, expressed the same concerns as I see here. Made no difference, thats what the bottom line needed - and it got it. That said, despite all the dire predictions, I have to concede that the safety record on the ground, and in the air, doesn't appear to have been negatively impacted.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
Actually I'm a LAME, and on RPT aircraft too! I too would like to spend all my time on tarmac, but when there's no flights, it's back to the hangar for me, carrying out checks etc.
Actually I'm a LAME, and on RPT aircraft too! I too would like to spend all my time on tarmac, but when there's no flights, it's back to the hangar for me, carrying out checks etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KANGA767
Who said anything about sitting around the tarmac whilst there are no aircraft on the deck? This is about having appropriately qualified personnel carrying out the appropriate tasks. I have no problem (or didn't when I had an airline to work for) with hangar work. In fact I would encourage it as most Line people would acknowledge that the knowledge gets a bit rusty - particularly with the joke that is CAR 214 training!
Denzil
I understand the JAA A rating and it's certainly not the ideal. But at least they have appropriate training and hands on experience. What qualifications other than flying and system operations to flight crew have for which I have a great deal of respect.
ETOPS is exempted as is RVSM and unbelievably they have said that International flights must be done by a LAME resulting in less safe domestic aviation in Australia.
Who said anything about sitting around the tarmac whilst there are no aircraft on the deck? This is about having appropriately qualified personnel carrying out the appropriate tasks. I have no problem (or didn't when I had an airline to work for) with hangar work. In fact I would encourage it as most Line people would acknowledge that the knowledge gets a bit rusty - particularly with the joke that is CAR 214 training!
Denzil
I understand the JAA A rating and it's certainly not the ideal. But at least they have appropriate training and hands on experience. What qualifications other than flying and system operations to flight crew have for which I have a great deal of respect.
ETOPS is exempted as is RVSM and unbelievably they have said that International flights must be done by a LAME resulting in less safe domestic aviation in Australia.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME-I agree with you it shouldn't be happening but it is. As a comparison how long ago were there 4 man crews in a cockpit.A -400 jumbo now has 2.
With the shortage (?) of licences and the way the rest of the world operates this move in AUS is unavoidable.
An actual percentage of maintenance reports saying "NIL" would not back up your/our cause.
Boeing themselves are advising new aircraft customers that a plane can fly for 10 days without seeing an engineer.
Unfortunatly until there is an incident,more so loss of life,licences won't be req'd on tarmac.
With the shortage (?) of licences and the way the rest of the world operates this move in AUS is unavoidable.
An actual percentage of maintenance reports saying "NIL" would not back up your/our cause.
Boeing themselves are advising new aircraft customers that a plane can fly for 10 days without seeing an engineer.
Unfortunatly until there is an incident,more so loss of life,licences won't be req'd on tarmac.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mainwheel
I don't have a great argument with you, other than saying the advent of the two man cockpit was due to integration/automation of systems and the 'Nil' write up unfortunately is quite often due to schedule pressures. As for Boeing they are going to say that the aircraft require minimal maintenance whatever the reality is. It is the ICAO SARPS which determine the operational maintenance requirements, not the manufacturers. But you are right. It will take a BIG burning hole in the ground to change things here. The operators simply shop around the CASA district offices until they get the approval they want, and then CASA seems unwilling to revoke it and counsel the AWI who issues an incorrect approval - usually through lack of training.
I don't have a great argument with you, other than saying the advent of the two man cockpit was due to integration/automation of systems and the 'Nil' write up unfortunately is quite often due to schedule pressures. As for Boeing they are going to say that the aircraft require minimal maintenance whatever the reality is. It is the ICAO SARPS which determine the operational maintenance requirements, not the manufacturers. But you are right. It will take a BIG burning hole in the ground to change things here. The operators simply shop around the CASA district offices until they get the approval they want, and then CASA seems unwilling to revoke it and counsel the AWI who issues an incorrect approval - usually through lack of training.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay then AN LAME,
Back up your statement with facts, tell us where-abouts in the regs are your claims?
The AN MSM stated that an engineer had to do a pre-flight, but that was your MSM, where is it in the regs? I would like to see it, but I am having trouble finding it (agreed on your ambiguous effort!)
Awaiting your response....
GTG!
Back up your statement with facts, tell us where-abouts in the regs are your claims?
The AN MSM stated that an engineer had to do a pre-flight, but that was your MSM, where is it in the regs? I would like to see it, but I am having trouble finding it (agreed on your ambiguous effort!)
Awaiting your response....
GTG!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Commonwealth of Australia is a signatory to the 1944 Chicago convention which established ICAO. Hence we are bound to comply with ICAO requirements. The following are the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for Commercial Aviation:
· Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1: A flight shall not be commenced until flight preparation forms have been completed certifying that the pilot-in-command is satisfied that:
a) the aeroplane is airworthy;
c) a maintenance release as prescribed in 8.7 has been issued in respect of the aeroplane;
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.7.5.3: The competence of maintenance personnel shall be established in accordance with a procedure and to a level acceptable to the State granting the approval. The person signing a maintenance release shall be qualified in accordance with Annex 1.
· Annex 1 Chapter 4.2.2.1: The privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of a powerplant, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a mainten-ance release following inspection, maintenance operations and/or routine servicing.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.1.2: An operator shall not operate an aeroplane unless it is maintained and released to service by an organization approved in accordance with 8.7, or under an equivalent system, either of which shall be acceptable to the State of Registry.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.1.3: When the State of Registry accepts an equivalent system, the person signing the maintenance release shall be licensed in accordance with Annex 1.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.8.1: A maintenance release shall be completed and signed to certify that the maintenance work performed has been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with approved data and the procedures described in the maintenance organization’s procedures manual.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.8.2: A maintenance release shall contain a certification including:
a) basic details of the maintenance carried out including detailed reference of the approved data used;
b) date such maintenance was completed;
c) when applicable, the identity of the approved maintenance organization; and
d) the identity of the person or persons signing the release.
The two salient points here are that a maintenance release must be signed prior to EVERY flight and must be signed by an ANNex 1 person - a LAME!
CAR1988 contains the Australian requirements. However they do not always agree with ICAO and hence one of the reasons why we are attempting to harmonise with ICAO and Foreign NAAs through the Regulatory Review Program which is supposedly consulting with ALL of industry not just the operators:
CAR42ZC Maintenance on Australian aircraft in Australian territory.
The holder of the certificate of registration for, or the operator or pilot in command of, an Australian aircraft must not authorise or permit any maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft in Australian territory except by a person who is permitted by this regulation to carry out the maintenance.
· Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1: A flight shall not be commenced until flight preparation forms have been completed certifying that the pilot-in-command is satisfied that:
a) the aeroplane is airworthy;
c) a maintenance release as prescribed in 8.7 has been issued in respect of the aeroplane;
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.7.5.3: The competence of maintenance personnel shall be established in accordance with a procedure and to a level acceptable to the State granting the approval. The person signing a maintenance release shall be qualified in accordance with Annex 1.
· Annex 1 Chapter 4.2.2.1: The privileges of the holder of an aircraft maintenance licence shall be to certify the aircraft or parts of the aircraft as airworthy after an authorized repair, modification or installation of a powerplant, accessory, instrument, and/or item of equipment, and to sign a mainten-ance release following inspection, maintenance operations and/or routine servicing.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.1.2: An operator shall not operate an aeroplane unless it is maintained and released to service by an organization approved in accordance with 8.7, or under an equivalent system, either of which shall be acceptable to the State of Registry.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.1.3: When the State of Registry accepts an equivalent system, the person signing the maintenance release shall be licensed in accordance with Annex 1.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.8.1: A maintenance release shall be completed and signed to certify that the maintenance work performed has been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with approved data and the procedures described in the maintenance organization’s procedures manual.
· Annex 8 Part 1 Chapter 8.8.2: A maintenance release shall contain a certification including:
a) basic details of the maintenance carried out including detailed reference of the approved data used;
b) date such maintenance was completed;
c) when applicable, the identity of the approved maintenance organization; and
d) the identity of the person or persons signing the release.
The two salient points here are that a maintenance release must be signed prior to EVERY flight and must be signed by an ANNex 1 person - a LAME!
CAR1988 contains the Australian requirements. However they do not always agree with ICAO and hence one of the reasons why we are attempting to harmonise with ICAO and Foreign NAAs through the Regulatory Review Program which is supposedly consulting with ALL of industry not just the operators:
CAR42ZC Maintenance on Australian aircraft in Australian territory.
The holder of the certificate of registration for, or the operator or pilot in command of, an Australian aircraft must not authorise or permit any maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft in Australian territory except by a person who is permitted by this regulation to carry out the maintenance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also
CAR42ZY Maintenance control manuals
(1)(d)(v) a statement determining the period, or period of time-in-service, for which a maintenance release for the aircraft is to
remain in force.
CAR42ZY Maintenance control manuals
(1)(d)(v) a statement determining the period, or period of time-in-service, for which a maintenance release for the aircraft is to
remain in force.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further(Sorry its taking me a while to find it all):
CAR43 Maintenance releases in respect of Australian aircraft
(1) Maintenance releases in respect of Australian aircraft shall be issued only by authorised persons and only in such manner, and in accordance with such form, as CASA directs or approves.
(2) CASA may give a direction specifying the information to be entered on a maintenance release before its issue.
(3) Where a person appointed as an authorised person for the purposes of this regulation is a body corporate, CASA shall specify in the instrument of appointment the condition that any maintenance release issued by the authorised person is to be signed, on behalf of the authorised person, by a specified person or by a person included in a specified class of persons.
(4) CASA may give a direction with respect to the retention and transfer of maintenance releases and copies of maintenance releases issued under this regulation.
(5) CASA may give a direction specifying the period, or the maximum period, that a maintenance release of a kind specified in the direction is to be expressed to remain in force.
(6) Unless CASA otherwise approves, a maintenance release shall not be issued in respect of an aircraft unless there is in force a certificate of airworthiness in respect of the aircraft.
(7) A maintenance release shall not be issued in respect of an aircraft unless:
(a) all maintenance in respect of the aircraft required to be carried out to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under these Regulations has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or
(b) for a maintenance release for a flight under a special flight permit issued under regulation 21.197 of CAR 1998, or under a
permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1)—the
completion of any maintenance required under a condition of the permit, or under a direction in relation to the permit or permission, has been certified under regulation 42ZE or 42ZN.
(8) For the purposes of paragraph (7) (a), the existence of an earlier maintenance release issued by virtue of that paragraph in respect of an aircraft may, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be accepted by an authorised person for the purposes of this regulation as proof that all maintenance required under these Regulations to be carried out on the aircraft before the date of issue of the earlier maintenance release has been certified to have been completed as required by that paragraph.
(9) A maintenance release may bear an endorsement that the release is issued subject to a condition set out in the endorsement, being a condition imposed for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation.
(10) Where an aircraft has a permissible unserviceability, a maintenance release issued in respect of the aircraft, or other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of this subregulation, shall bear an endorsement:
(a) setting out each permissible unserviceability that exists with
respect to the aircraft;
(b) setting out such of the conditions (if any) with respect to the use of an aircraft with those permissible unserviceabilities set out in any direction given under regulation 37 in relation to those
permissible unserviceabilities as are not set out in any operations
manual issued with respect to the aircraft or in Part 20 of the Civil
Aviation Orders; and
(c) stating that the maintenance release is issued subject to those conditions, whether set out in the maintenance release or the other document or otherwise.
(11) A person shall not issue a maintenance release in contravention of this regulation.
Penalty:
(a) for a contravention of subregulation (1)—25 penalty units; or
(b) for a contravention of subregulation (6)—25 penalty units; or
(c) for a contravention of subregulation (7)—50 penalty units; or
(d) for a contravention of subregulation(10)—10 penalty units.
(11A) A person must not contravene:
(a) a direction; or
(b) the condition specified in subregulation (3); or
(c) a condition to which a maintenance release is subject.
Penalty:
(a) for a contravention of a direction under subregulation (2)—10
penalty units; or
(b) for a contravention of the condition specified in subregulation
(3)—10 penalty units; or
(c) for a contravention of a direction under subregulation (4) or (5)—
5 penalty units; or
(d) for a contravention of a condition under subregulation (9)—50
penalty units.
(12) Subregulation (11) does not apply in relation to a person by reason only that he or she has issued a maintenance release in contravention of a direction given under this regulation unless the direction has been served on the person.
(13) A person shall not sign a maintenance release to be issued by virtue of paragraph (7) (a) in respect of an aircraft if:
(a) the person considers that:
(i) the aircraft is in a damaged condition or is defective;
(ii) the damage is major damage or the defect is a major defect,
as the case may be; and
(iii) the damage or defect is not a permissible unserviceability;
(b) the person considers that maintenance carried out on the aircraft may have adversely affected, to such an extent as to affect the safety of the aircraft, the flight characteristics of the aircraft or the operating characteristics of any aircraft component, or of any system of aircraft components, installed in the aircraft;
(c) the person is aware that certain maintenance that has been carried out on the aircraft has not been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or
(d) the person is aware that:
(i) information entered on the maintenance release is incorrect;
or
(ii) the maintenance release does not contain all information
that it is required by or under these Regulations to contain.
(13A) A person must not contravene subregulation (13).
Penalty:
(a) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of paragraph (13) (a) or (b)—50 penalty units; or
(b) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of paragraph (13) (c)—10 penalty units; or
(c) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of
paragraph (13) (d)—25 penalty units.
(15) A direction given under this regulation does not have effect in relation to a person until it has been served on the person.
(16) Where a maintenance release is issued under this regulation, or again commences to be in force by virtue of regulation 48, in respect of an aircraft, any other maintenance release in force in respect of the aircraft immediately before that issue or that commencement, as the case may be, ceases to be in force.
CARs 44 through 49 also refer
CAR43 Maintenance releases in respect of Australian aircraft
(1) Maintenance releases in respect of Australian aircraft shall be issued only by authorised persons and only in such manner, and in accordance with such form, as CASA directs or approves.
(2) CASA may give a direction specifying the information to be entered on a maintenance release before its issue.
(3) Where a person appointed as an authorised person for the purposes of this regulation is a body corporate, CASA shall specify in the instrument of appointment the condition that any maintenance release issued by the authorised person is to be signed, on behalf of the authorised person, by a specified person or by a person included in a specified class of persons.
(4) CASA may give a direction with respect to the retention and transfer of maintenance releases and copies of maintenance releases issued under this regulation.
(5) CASA may give a direction specifying the period, or the maximum period, that a maintenance release of a kind specified in the direction is to be expressed to remain in force.
(6) Unless CASA otherwise approves, a maintenance release shall not be issued in respect of an aircraft unless there is in force a certificate of airworthiness in respect of the aircraft.
(7) A maintenance release shall not be issued in respect of an aircraft unless:
(a) all maintenance in respect of the aircraft required to be carried out to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under these Regulations has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or
(b) for a maintenance release for a flight under a special flight permit issued under regulation 21.197 of CAR 1998, or under a
permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1)—the
completion of any maintenance required under a condition of the permit, or under a direction in relation to the permit or permission, has been certified under regulation 42ZE or 42ZN.
(8) For the purposes of paragraph (7) (a), the existence of an earlier maintenance release issued by virtue of that paragraph in respect of an aircraft may, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be accepted by an authorised person for the purposes of this regulation as proof that all maintenance required under these Regulations to be carried out on the aircraft before the date of issue of the earlier maintenance release has been certified to have been completed as required by that paragraph.
(9) A maintenance release may bear an endorsement that the release is issued subject to a condition set out in the endorsement, being a condition imposed for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation.
(10) Where an aircraft has a permissible unserviceability, a maintenance release issued in respect of the aircraft, or other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of this subregulation, shall bear an endorsement:
(a) setting out each permissible unserviceability that exists with
respect to the aircraft;
(b) setting out such of the conditions (if any) with respect to the use of an aircraft with those permissible unserviceabilities set out in any direction given under regulation 37 in relation to those
permissible unserviceabilities as are not set out in any operations
manual issued with respect to the aircraft or in Part 20 of the Civil
Aviation Orders; and
(c) stating that the maintenance release is issued subject to those conditions, whether set out in the maintenance release or the other document or otherwise.
(11) A person shall not issue a maintenance release in contravention of this regulation.
Penalty:
(a) for a contravention of subregulation (1)—25 penalty units; or
(b) for a contravention of subregulation (6)—25 penalty units; or
(c) for a contravention of subregulation (7)—50 penalty units; or
(d) for a contravention of subregulation(10)—10 penalty units.
(11A) A person must not contravene:
(a) a direction; or
(b) the condition specified in subregulation (3); or
(c) a condition to which a maintenance release is subject.
Penalty:
(a) for a contravention of a direction under subregulation (2)—10
penalty units; or
(b) for a contravention of the condition specified in subregulation
(3)—10 penalty units; or
(c) for a contravention of a direction under subregulation (4) or (5)—
5 penalty units; or
(d) for a contravention of a condition under subregulation (9)—50
penalty units.
(12) Subregulation (11) does not apply in relation to a person by reason only that he or she has issued a maintenance release in contravention of a direction given under this regulation unless the direction has been served on the person.
(13) A person shall not sign a maintenance release to be issued by virtue of paragraph (7) (a) in respect of an aircraft if:
(a) the person considers that:
(i) the aircraft is in a damaged condition or is defective;
(ii) the damage is major damage or the defect is a major defect,
as the case may be; and
(iii) the damage or defect is not a permissible unserviceability;
(b) the person considers that maintenance carried out on the aircraft may have adversely affected, to such an extent as to affect the safety of the aircraft, the flight characteristics of the aircraft or the operating characteristics of any aircraft component, or of any system of aircraft components, installed in the aircraft;
(c) the person is aware that certain maintenance that has been carried out on the aircraft has not been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed; or
(d) the person is aware that:
(i) information entered on the maintenance release is incorrect;
or
(ii) the maintenance release does not contain all information
that it is required by or under these Regulations to contain.
(13A) A person must not contravene subregulation (13).
Penalty:
(a) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of paragraph (13) (a) or (b)—50 penalty units; or
(b) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of paragraph (13) (c)—10 penalty units; or
(c) if the person signs the maintenance release in contravention of
paragraph (13) (d)—25 penalty units.
(15) A direction given under this regulation does not have effect in relation to a person until it has been served on the person.
(16) Where a maintenance release is issued under this regulation, or again commences to be in force by virtue of regulation 48, in respect of an aircraft, any other maintenance release in force in respect of the aircraft immediately before that issue or that commencement, as the case may be, ceases to be in force.
CARs 44 through 49 also refer
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
As I said before, I think it is a very sad situation.
However, the Maintenance Release that CASA and ICAO are refering to is NOT anything that is signed just after refuelling and preflight checks, it is what is signed by a LAME after maintenance is done on the Aircraft, normally overnight.
The Maintenace Release, depending on the operator, remains in force for many hours or days, UNLESS the PIC writes up a defect OR the Aircraft suffers major damage or a major defect. There is (sadly) no requirement for a LAME to sign anything between maintenance releases on an Aircraft that remains servicable, and does not do ETOPS etc.
Best regards,
airsupport.
As I said before, I think it is a very sad situation.
However, the Maintenance Release that CASA and ICAO are refering to is NOT anything that is signed just after refuelling and preflight checks, it is what is signed by a LAME after maintenance is done on the Aircraft, normally overnight.
The Maintenace Release, depending on the operator, remains in force for many hours or days, UNLESS the PIC writes up a defect OR the Aircraft suffers major damage or a major defect. There is (sadly) no requirement for a LAME to sign anything between maintenance releases on an Aircraft that remains servicable, and does not do ETOPS etc.
Best regards,
airsupport.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirment for a Maintenance release or, Certificate of Maintenance Review, or Relseae to Service to be signed by a LAME will still be there. It is just the requirement for a preflight or transit check to be signed by a LAME that won't be there.
I heard a whisper that the new QF -800's didn't require a preflight signed by LAME?
Indeed - by dragging Australian Regs into the 21st cenntury you should see a raft of improvements.
Under some Maintenance systems I have worked with, what you call a Maintenance Release, issued for 1 month/50 cycles or the like - actually became a Certificate of Maintenance Review issued every 12 months by the QA dept.
I heard a whisper that the new QF -800's didn't require a preflight signed by LAME?
Indeed - by dragging Australian Regs into the 21st cenntury you should see a raft of improvements.
Under some Maintenance systems I have worked with, what you call a Maintenance Release, issued for 1 month/50 cycles or the like - actually became a Certificate of Maintenance Review issued every 12 months by the QA dept.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
Thanks for posting the relevant documents. I perused CAR 1988 and CAR1998 yesterday but didn't have a chance to check the ICAO documents. As with any legal document, they are open to interpretation and ambiguities. I still believe (well, my interpretation,) that in the current CAR's that there is no requirement for LAME's to carry out or indeed certify for a walk-around/pre-flight inspection. And to issue a new maintenance release prior to each flight? I don't think any Australian airline does that now (Could be wrong), nor is required too.
I note in the ICAO's doc's that:-
· Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1: A flight shall not be commenced until flight preparation forms have been completed certifying that the pilot-in-command is satisfied that:
a) the aeroplane is airworthy;
c) a maintenance release as prescribed in 8.7 has been issued in respect of the aeroplane;
Paragraph (c) doesn't say that a NEW MR has to be issued before EACH flight.
My interpretation is that the MR has been issued at some time previous, and is IN FORCE at the time of the flight.
Even AN didn't issue a new MR every night.
In this instance, I have to agree with the last comments made by Airsupport and to a lesser extent Pimpdaddy. Lame's will be still required to Issue MR's.
PimpDaddy, the last I heard, the QF -800's didn't require preflight certification, but the LAME's are still doing it and I think the ALAEA is pursuing the matter with QF.
Cheers!
GTG!
Thanks for posting the relevant documents. I perused CAR 1988 and CAR1998 yesterday but didn't have a chance to check the ICAO documents. As with any legal document, they are open to interpretation and ambiguities. I still believe (well, my interpretation,) that in the current CAR's that there is no requirement for LAME's to carry out or indeed certify for a walk-around/pre-flight inspection. And to issue a new maintenance release prior to each flight? I don't think any Australian airline does that now (Could be wrong), nor is required too.
I note in the ICAO's doc's that:-
· Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1: A flight shall not be commenced until flight preparation forms have been completed certifying that the pilot-in-command is satisfied that:
a) the aeroplane is airworthy;
c) a maintenance release as prescribed in 8.7 has been issued in respect of the aeroplane;
Paragraph (c) doesn't say that a NEW MR has to be issued before EACH flight.
My interpretation is that the MR has been issued at some time previous, and is IN FORCE at the time of the flight.
Even AN didn't issue a new MR every night.
In this instance, I have to agree with the last comments made by Airsupport and to a lesser extent Pimpdaddy. Lame's will be still required to Issue MR's.
PimpDaddy, the last I heard, the QF -800's didn't require preflight certification, but the LAME's are still doing it and I think the ALAEA is pursuing the matter with QF.
Cheers!
GTG!