CAA standards
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: YORK
CAA standards
Why is it big companys that are correctly run and abide with all required legislation required from governing bodies eg. the CAA seem to get punished when audits are carried out. Last audit at my place of work everything was good until the CAA man looked at a work pack and decided we should make an entry in the work pack for the removel of an engine cowl on a Piper PA28 so it can be signed off as refitted on completetion of work carried out in case some one forgets to refit it. If this was a 747 then fair do but its quite obvious on a puddle jumper if the cowl is missing.
Then you get these little maintenance organisations on airfileds in the sticks that do things their own way one instance an aircraft in one hangar with its engine missing the other parts on a rack in another hangar with no labels as to what aircraft they came off and seem to get away with it. Nothing in their workpack saying engine in hangar 1 cowls on floor in hangar 2 at opposite end to the above mentioned aircraft.
I used to work for a little place in East Yorkshire and was shocked as to how much the CAA turned a blind eye to everything. If this had been a bigger company all hell would of broken out.
Also when we need a duplicate inspection we have two licensed engineers who look and sign for it. The smaller company has got permission from the CAA to have a fitter been able to sign off duplicates with the engineer that owns the company.
In the past year two MORs have been presented to the CAA about this company for fitting vital parts the wrong way round and they seem to do nothing.
I think its unfair how it seems to be one rule for one but not for the other.
Am i alone for thinking this i would like to hear your views.
Then you get these little maintenance organisations on airfileds in the sticks that do things their own way one instance an aircraft in one hangar with its engine missing the other parts on a rack in another hangar with no labels as to what aircraft they came off and seem to get away with it. Nothing in their workpack saying engine in hangar 1 cowls on floor in hangar 2 at opposite end to the above mentioned aircraft.
I used to work for a little place in East Yorkshire and was shocked as to how much the CAA turned a blind eye to everything. If this had been a bigger company all hell would of broken out.
Also when we need a duplicate inspection we have two licensed engineers who look and sign for it. The smaller company has got permission from the CAA to have a fitter been able to sign off duplicates with the engineer that owns the company.
In the past year two MORs have been presented to the CAA about this company for fitting vital parts the wrong way round and they seem to do nothing.
I think its unfair how it seems to be one rule for one but not for the other.
Am i alone for thinking this i would like to hear your views.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
Hi i think i know the place in East Yorkshire you are referring to. There is talk that the chap (engineer) had set the flying controls up wrong nearly killing the owner of the airfield.
Also yes it should be the same rules for all companies when it comes to maintaining aircraft.
Also yes it should be the same rules for all companies when it comes to maintaining aircraft.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
Andy,
You've missed the point of aircraft paperwork completely...
It isnt about "forgetting" to put the cowl back on later but about someone certifying that it has been fitted and that it has been done properly.
However, a synic might suggest that if you forgot to raise that paperwork, the pile on the desk would not equal the weight of the aircraft prior to its next flight!!
You've missed the point of aircraft paperwork completely...
It isnt about "forgetting" to put the cowl back on later but about someone certifying that it has been fitted and that it has been done properly.
However, a synic might suggest that if you forgot to raise that paperwork, the pile on the desk would not equal the weight of the aircraft prior to its next flight!!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 2
From: Europe
The OP's point that the CAA operates so far as regulation of maintenance standards is concerned with no consistency whatsoever is correct.
What makes it worse is the culture of arrogance that its Surveyors learn all too quickly, expecially when that comes with ignorance of the Regulations and sheer incompetence.
The end result is that there are indeed some organisations - large and small - where things are done exceedingly badly without any evident knowledge or even interest on the CAA's part, and others where the Surveyor imposes rules that are entirely of his own making, usually with no contributon to aviation safety.
What makes it worse is the culture of arrogance that its Surveyors learn all too quickly, expecially when that comes with ignorance of the Regulations and sheer incompetence.
The end result is that there are indeed some organisations - large and small - where things are done exceedingly badly without any evident knowledge or even interest on the CAA's part, and others where the Surveyor imposes rules that are entirely of his own making, usually with no contributon to aviation safety.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: YORK
RIGGA wrote
Andy,
You've missed the point of aircraft paperwork completely...
It isnt about "forgetting" to put the cowl back on later but about someone certifying that it has been fitted and that it has been done properly.
No i have not missed the point of paperwork completely because the CAA man stated that if i was off ill someone may forget to refit the engine cowls hence the entry in the workpack. Our workpack has a section to sign asking if all panels have been refitted so that the engineer who is certifying the aircraft for release has seen that everthing has been refiitted.
If we do start doing a seperate worksheet for the removel and refitting of engine cowls we would then also do it with an I.A.W as we do with every other task.
Andy,
You've missed the point of aircraft paperwork completely...
It isnt about "forgetting" to put the cowl back on later but about someone certifying that it has been fitted and that it has been done properly.
No i have not missed the point of paperwork completely because the CAA man stated that if i was off ill someone may forget to refit the engine cowls hence the entry in the workpack. Our workpack has a section to sign asking if all panels have been refitted so that the engineer who is certifying the aircraft for release has seen that everthing has been refiitted.
If we do start doing a seperate worksheet for the removel and refitting of engine cowls we would then also do it with an I.A.W as we do with every other task.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
From: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
"If this was a 747 then fair do but its quite obvious on a puddle jumper if the cowl is missing."
Great, now we have engineers thinking that it is ok to have double standards because it's a little aircraft!
145 is clear on carrying out work, and you are suppose to sign for everything you do, and either carry out a written handover of the work or process out the work so it is clear what the status of work is... and it isn't a weight or type issue, it's to every aircraft.
If you extend the "small" aircraft argument where does that leave us with the helicopter community?
I appreciate that 145 and Part M may be onerous for small operations but thats just tuff and the cost of operating in the modern aviation world is expensive!
Miles
Great, now we have engineers thinking that it is ok to have double standards because it's a little aircraft!
145 is clear on carrying out work, and you are suppose to sign for everything you do, and either carry out a written handover of the work or process out the work so it is clear what the status of work is... and it isn't a weight or type issue, it's to every aircraft.
If you extend the "small" aircraft argument where does that leave us with the helicopter community?
I appreciate that 145 and Part M may be onerous for small operations but thats just tuff and the cost of operating in the modern aviation world is expensive!
Miles
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
I think you are been very anul with your reply Miles, There is a vast difference between G.A and Commercial aircraft you come accross as a pen pusher not an engineer with that reply. BY the sound of it AVGASANDY appears to sign off everything with an I.A.W and there is a section in his work pack asking have all panels been refitted.
If i was stood at the side of a 747 and asked if the opposite sides engine cowls were on or off i would have to walk round and take a look so yes a separate entry in the work pack is a good thing to have, However if asked the same of a PA28 i could answer that no matter what side of the aircraft i was on. So (have the all panels been refiitted section should be fine).
If i was stood at the side of a 747 and asked if the opposite sides engine cowls were on or off i would have to walk round and take a look so yes a separate entry in the work pack is a good thing to have, However if asked the same of a PA28 i could answer that no matter what side of the aircraft i was on. So (have the all panels been refiitted section should be fine).
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
From: wales
Dont understand the problem, if you are carrying out maintenance you document it ? whether its large or small its never been any different even before 145 . How you do it in practice is a different matter , and if you get caught during an audit then you dont have a leg to stand on .
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 262
From: Blighty
I think you are been very anul with your reply Miles,
Whether a light aeroplane or a Jumbo jet, someone has to be responsible for fitting and removing componants.
Murphy's law can apply anywhere....
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: doncaster
Right lets try this one more time and see if the message finally gets across.
AVGAS is not saying he doesnt feel he should have to sign for the engine cowl, he is saying that the workpack he is already using has an entry stating that ALL cowlings are installed so he doesn't see the need for ANOTHER seperate entry in the workpack for every single cowling/fastener/acces door.
Are you seriously trying to convince everyone that every time you open the access door to the ground power socket or open a door or magnetic flap to check fire bottle pressure you raise an entry.No, of course you don't.Two things, the jobcard for whatever component AVGAS was working on, that required the cowl to be removed would have "refit engine cowl" as it's final ops which means it's the responsibility of the engineer signing that task off to ensure the engine cowl is correctly fitted. Second the aircraft cannot leave until someone signs off the entry stating that all cowlings are fitted and closed correctly again this is the responsibility of the engineer signing this entry. I do not see any justification for adding a THIRD entry for an engine cowl.I could go to any maintenance organisation tomorrow look on any aircraft and find at least a dozen doors,panels,access flaps that have NEVER been raised as opened or removed.
AVGAS is not saying he doesnt feel he should have to sign for the engine cowl, he is saying that the workpack he is already using has an entry stating that ALL cowlings are installed so he doesn't see the need for ANOTHER seperate entry in the workpack for every single cowling/fastener/acces door.
Are you seriously trying to convince everyone that every time you open the access door to the ground power socket or open a door or magnetic flap to check fire bottle pressure you raise an entry.No, of course you don't.Two things, the jobcard for whatever component AVGAS was working on, that required the cowl to be removed would have "refit engine cowl" as it's final ops which means it's the responsibility of the engineer signing that task off to ensure the engine cowl is correctly fitted. Second the aircraft cannot leave until someone signs off the entry stating that all cowlings are fitted and closed correctly again this is the responsibility of the engineer signing this entry. I do not see any justification for adding a THIRD entry for an engine cowl.I could go to any maintenance organisation tomorrow look on any aircraft and find at least a dozen doors,panels,access flaps that have NEVER been raised as opened or removed.
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 1,116
From: UK
AVGAS is not saying he doesnt feel he should have to sign for the engine cowl, he is saying that the workpack he is already using has an entry stating that ALL cowlings are installed so he doesn't see the need for ANOTHER seperate entry in the workpack for every single cowling/fastener/acces door.
Are you seriously trying to convince everyone that every time you open the access door to the ground power socket or open a door or magnetic flap to check fire bottle pressure you raise an entry.
Opening a ground power panel is not a maintenance function, removing an engine cowling is.
Just me tuppence worth.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: YORK
I think i should also mention after i carry out the ground run and record all Ps & Ts, flight controls freedom of movement, all other functions mags and so on and radios work on the aircraft i have another form to sign after the ground run asking do all exterior lights work, are engine oil levels correct and here it is are all cowl fasteners safe and fastened correctly and are all panels refitted.
So come on back to my original thread what about the duplicates i have spoken to Engineers and they say the said company having a fitter been able to do them is a proper p-ss take and hence thats why two different a/c had vital parts fitted incorrectly leading to MORs. I spoke to the fitter there and he says regardless of what he say his boss says to him i am the licensed engineer not you and yet it appears the CAA do not seem to do anything.
So come on back to my original thread what about the duplicates i have spoken to Engineers and they say the said company having a fitter been able to do them is a proper p-ss take and hence thats why two different a/c had vital parts fitted incorrectly leading to MORs. I spoke to the fitter there and he says regardless of what he say his boss says to him i am the licensed engineer not you and yet it appears the CAA do not seem to do anything.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: The Sandpit
It's only another line on the paperwork!
Besides,
Certifying the installation of a cowl, large or small a/c. Is not the same as signing a check completion card to say it is fitted. As has been said before it's about accountability. Who fitted the cowl, not is it there.
In the event the cowl detached a MEDA or whatever could establish the installer and investigate the reasons for the error. Without a signature for the installation the installer is unknown and COULD (I'm not suggesting that they would however) deny any knowledge.
Besides,
Certifying the installation of a cowl, large or small a/c. Is not the same as signing a check completion card to say it is fitted. As has been said before it's about accountability. Who fitted the cowl, not is it there.
In the event the cowl detached a MEDA or whatever could establish the installer and investigate the reasons for the error. Without a signature for the installation the installer is unknown and COULD (I'm not suggesting that they would however) deny any knowledge.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,143
Likes: 5,739
From: Falling off the end of the thread
There is no need for an entry on the paperwork for refitting cowls on a light aircraft purely and simply because the majority are maintained under LAMPS and item 3 on the LAMPS schedule states
Therefore in clearing an aircraft under the LAMPS schedule you are certifying the task has been carried out.
The CAA can be diabolical and the standards vary from excellent to dreadful amongst some Surveyors, yours obviously does not know their own Maintenance programmes or would be aware there is an entry in it!..
One of the classic cases to show the widespread differences in interpretation and quality was when companies moved over to EASA approvals, one just has to look at the types that companies are certified to maintain........
Some companies have had to list the likes of Cessna140 150 152 172 182 210 etc etc etc where others have been allowed to simply list Reims/Cessna singles below XYZ weight, the latter being the sensible way to do them.............
Indeed one company even had I believe Cirrus twins on their approval........ they might as well of had Rebel Alliance X Wing MK 1 on their approval, because neither exist in real life!!!
I am afraid the CAA has gone down hill rapidly in recent years, surveyors used to be people from the industry with a wide knowledge of aircraft and their systems, these days a lot of them are ex graduates who simply do not have a clue.... I despaired when I read through the original CAA Engineers guidance to licensing book, under type examples for holding groups they had
Cessna Metal Pressurised Multi Piston Engined Aircraft
the two examples they listed being the
Cessna 550 ( CITATION JET!!!! )
Cessna 441 ( TURBO PROP!!!!! )
I have seen hangars where the CAA have moaned the floor is not painted, or the wrong colour!!!! or the paint is flaking, then I have been to hangars that have compressed earth floors and thought, bet they were never told to paint it!!
I have seen Engineers working on their own have to produce pie charts to show how they split up their day in the exposition or produce shift hand over forms to hand over work to other engineers even though he is a one man band................ so what the CAA does never suprises me these days.
3 Following ground run, ensure all cowlings, access panels and doors are secure. CHK All checks
The CAA can be diabolical and the standards vary from excellent to dreadful amongst some Surveyors, yours obviously does not know their own Maintenance programmes or would be aware there is an entry in it!..
One of the classic cases to show the widespread differences in interpretation and quality was when companies moved over to EASA approvals, one just has to look at the types that companies are certified to maintain........
Some companies have had to list the likes of Cessna140 150 152 172 182 210 etc etc etc where others have been allowed to simply list Reims/Cessna singles below XYZ weight, the latter being the sensible way to do them.............
Indeed one company even had I believe Cirrus twins on their approval........ they might as well of had Rebel Alliance X Wing MK 1 on their approval, because neither exist in real life!!!
I am afraid the CAA has gone down hill rapidly in recent years, surveyors used to be people from the industry with a wide knowledge of aircraft and their systems, these days a lot of them are ex graduates who simply do not have a clue.... I despaired when I read through the original CAA Engineers guidance to licensing book, under type examples for holding groups they had
Cessna Metal Pressurised Multi Piston Engined Aircraft
the two examples they listed being the
Cessna 550 ( CITATION JET!!!! )
Cessna 441 ( TURBO PROP!!!!! )
I have seen hangars where the CAA have moaned the floor is not painted, or the wrong colour!!!! or the paint is flaking, then I have been to hangars that have compressed earth floors and thought, bet they were never told to paint it!!
I have seen Engineers working on their own have to produce pie charts to show how they split up their day in the exposition or produce shift hand over forms to hand over work to other engineers even though he is a one man band................ so what the CAA does never suprises me these days.
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd March 2011 at 02:23.
