AD-ENG-4 under attack.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AD/ENG/4 has "NEVER" been a problem since it's common sense application.
The removal "COULD" be a problem- Anyone who gets delight in change for the sake of change, especially where CASA is involved, probably, and more likely, is a sinister CASA "plant".
The removal "COULD" be a problem- Anyone who gets delight in change for the sake of change, especially where CASA is involved, probably, and more likely, is a sinister CASA "plant".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, but to give credit where due, CASA had been embarked on a process of eliminating Australian peculiar matters for some time.
AOPA have supported the concept until this "spokesman" came to notice.
This particular attempt at amendment is simply not in the best interests of the shareholder/members of the particular company.
I have a Commonwealth Ombudsman's report at hand that states as to schedule 5, that assert...
This schedule is the CASA schedule of maintenance, not any manufacturer's.
There is an option for the manufacturers schedule.
I also smell a rat.
AOPA have supported the concept until this "spokesman" came to notice.
This particular attempt at amendment is simply not in the best interests of the shareholder/members of the particular company.
I have a Commonwealth Ombudsman's report at hand that states as to schedule 5, that assert...
This schedule is the CASA schedule of maintenance, not any manufacturer's.
There is an option for the manufacturers schedule.
I also smell a rat.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 2nd Apr 2008 at 05:44.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear Plankbender. 
I agree whole heartedly, as would many others who operate on the AD.ENG. 4 system.
I had three Engines on the system and no problems to date. one of the engines went to nearly three times its recommended life without a problem, before I changed it out. when stripped for examination,. almost all the components were within limits. the few that weren't were non critical components and were still servicable.
I agree whole heartedly, as would many others who operate on the AD.ENG. 4 system.
I had three Engines on the system and no problems to date. one of the engines went to nearly three times its recommended life without a problem, before I changed it out. when stripped for examination,. almost all the components were within limits. the few that weren't were non critical components and were still servicable.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember when Schedule 5 first appeared that it was intended as a schedule for those aircraft whose manufacturers did not specify any maintenance schedule or the maintenance schedule was inadequate (eg. Tiger Moth).
I cannot recall (at initial release) if an owner could elect the CASA Schedule 5 in lieu of the manufacturers schedule as a simple choice - eg. it suits me better to use the CASA schedule as it will cost less etc.
Does anyone remember at what point schedule 5 could be selected in lieu of an adequate manufucturers schedule? Do you think AOPA's drive for to rid us of Australian unique ADs would extend to Schedule 5 as well?
Cheers
TH
I cannot recall (at initial release) if an owner could elect the CASA Schedule 5 in lieu of the manufacturers schedule as a simple choice - eg. it suits me better to use the CASA schedule as it will cost less etc.
Does anyone remember at what point schedule 5 could be selected in lieu of an adequate manufucturers schedule? Do you think AOPA's drive for to rid us of Australian unique ADs would extend to Schedule 5 as well?
Cheers
TH
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5000 hrs on a piston eng hey Wiz?
was still going strong when I stopped operating it with all the comps in the high 70's, (78 average) about 2 Ltrs of oil in 100Hrs and fuel burn unchanged.
Just have to love the 0320D2J. was thrashed as a mustering machine for nearly all those hours too.
Folks,
Schedule 5 is the equivalent of FAR 43, Appendix D, indeed it is a copy. As happens all to often, a few Australianisms were added, inc. para. 2.7, which costs GA dearly.
Schedule 5 is only an inspection schedule, you still need the data, but the MM for most GA aircraft are not comprehensive, you still need additional data. Despite some CASA AWIs not being able to comprehend this little fact, and insisting that any MM is all singing all dancing.
For example, the "data" for corrosion detection and rectification will be found in the relevant FAA AC. See below, FAA AC43-13A/B are now acceptable data, without "CASA approval", or any charges. AC 43.13A/B is the "bible" (except that its a lot bigger than the bible) for maintenance of continuing airworthiness for smaller aircraft.
As a result of CASA Instrument 377/06, CASA is out of the "approved data" business, and aircraft registered operators now have the same choice of data as if you were maintaining an aircraft under FAR 91 and FAR 43.( or JARs for that matter) --- with no CASA charges.
You have CASA's Greg Vaughan to thank for this, but para: 2.7 has got to go, and when it does, it will probably halve Hangar Keepers Liability insurance.
HooRoo for now!!
Schedule 5 is the equivalent of FAR 43, Appendix D, indeed it is a copy. As happens all to often, a few Australianisms were added, inc. para. 2.7, which costs GA dearly.
Schedule 5 is only an inspection schedule, you still need the data, but the MM for most GA aircraft are not comprehensive, you still need additional data. Despite some CASA AWIs not being able to comprehend this little fact, and insisting that any MM is all singing all dancing.
For example, the "data" for corrosion detection and rectification will be found in the relevant FAA AC. See below, FAA AC43-13A/B are now acceptable data, without "CASA approval", or any charges. AC 43.13A/B is the "bible" (except that its a lot bigger than the bible) for maintenance of continuing airworthiness for smaller aircraft.
As a result of CASA Instrument 377/06, CASA is out of the "approved data" business, and aircraft registered operators now have the same choice of data as if you were maintaining an aircraft under FAR 91 and FAR 43.( or JARs for that matter) --- with no CASA charges.
You have CASA's Greg Vaughan to thank for this, but para: 2.7 has got to go, and when it does, it will probably halve Hangar Keepers Liability insurance.
HooRoo for now!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your reference now makes it mandatory to "guarantee" the airworthiness of the aircraft until it's next periodical? (Even pink slips in NSW are only good for 14 days).
Except for an arse covering exercise by CASA over schedule 5 perhaps?
Pray tell, para. 2.7 is exactly what?
Whatever, it appears that "hard time" engine maintenance will be the new "recommendation" and dissolving AD/ENG/4 makes even less sense to aircraft owners and subsequently, operators etc.
Edited to add and remove some incriminating comment;
About 1996 I argued a case that culminated some time later with a Commonwealth Ombudsmans investigation into a "dodgy" MR and with subsequent apologies from Director of Aviation Safety with a promise to alter things.
The then Chairman of the CASA Board invited me to help compile a "Guide for the purchase of a light aircraft" which the AOPA office holds for distribution to those that want it. (if they haven't shredded it).
My "guide" was a rewrite of schedule 5 which at the time was one of the maintenance options open to an owner and gave the onus of responsibility by the LAME of the inspection to he, (or she), who commissioned the inspection. NOT the purchaser.
It now appears that schedule 5 removes the onus of responsibility from the Certificate of registration holder (or the operator), to the LAME to warrant the inspection until the next periodical. Tyres brakes come immediately to mind.
Reflecting on events;
1) CASA told me that schedule 5 made redundant the requirement for 4 yearly "major inspections" because things would be inspected annually therefor a better system.
2) Schedule 5 was a system of maintenance given as an option to the manufacturers system and at the time seemed a better idea because the manufacturers were probably only out to make a quid from their products?
3) Schedule 5 is now NOT a sysyem of maintenance in lieu of the manufacturer, but ONLY a schedule of maintenance.
I still can't see how repealing AD/ENG/4 makes any owner's life easier. The insurance implications as discussed shove everything back on the owner operator anyway.
As Bart Simpson said, I can't but half feel respsonsible for this.
Can anyone tell me exactly when para 2.7 came into existence?
Except for an arse covering exercise by CASA over schedule 5 perhaps?
Pray tell, para. 2.7 is exactly what?
Whatever, it appears that "hard time" engine maintenance will be the new "recommendation" and dissolving AD/ENG/4 makes even less sense to aircraft owners and subsequently, operators etc.
Edited to add and remove some incriminating comment;
About 1996 I argued a case that culminated some time later with a Commonwealth Ombudsmans investigation into a "dodgy" MR and with subsequent apologies from Director of Aviation Safety with a promise to alter things.
The then Chairman of the CASA Board invited me to help compile a "Guide for the purchase of a light aircraft" which the AOPA office holds for distribution to those that want it. (if they haven't shredded it).
My "guide" was a rewrite of schedule 5 which at the time was one of the maintenance options open to an owner and gave the onus of responsibility by the LAME of the inspection to he, (or she), who commissioned the inspection. NOT the purchaser.
It now appears that schedule 5 removes the onus of responsibility from the Certificate of registration holder (or the operator), to the LAME to warrant the inspection until the next periodical. Tyres brakes come immediately to mind.
Reflecting on events;
1) CASA told me that schedule 5 made redundant the requirement for 4 yearly "major inspections" because things would be inspected annually therefor a better system.
2) Schedule 5 was a system of maintenance given as an option to the manufacturers system and at the time seemed a better idea because the manufacturers were probably only out to make a quid from their products?
3) Schedule 5 is now NOT a sysyem of maintenance in lieu of the manufacturer, but ONLY a schedule of maintenance.
I still can't see how repealing AD/ENG/4 makes any owner's life easier. The insurance implications as discussed shove everything back on the owner operator anyway.
As Bart Simpson said, I can't but half feel respsonsible for this.
Can anyone tell me exactly when para 2.7 came into existence?
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 2nd Apr 2008 at 05:42.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Schedule 5: Para 2.7
Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.
(see the regs)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash Hauler;
Thanks for that info which after reflection prompted me to edit my post.
It pushed it to the back of the thread however, so if you feel the urge, see my edit above.
Cheers.
Thanks for that info which after reflection prompted me to edit my post.
It pushed it to the back of the thread however, so if you feel the urge, see my edit above.
Cheers.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
I am with you on AD-ENG-4. I cannot understand any benefit to aircraft owners if this was repealed. I think the dogma AOPA are on re Australian unique ADs misses the point in this case.
I do believe though there are LAMEs out there who would sleep better at night if AD-ENG-4 was repealed. As they sign out for another year an engine that may or may not go the distance some wonder who is liable if the engine fails in that period.
Cheers
TH
I am with you on AD-ENG-4. I cannot understand any benefit to aircraft owners if this was repealed. I think the dogma AOPA are on re Australian unique ADs misses the point in this case.
I do believe though there are LAMEs out there who would sleep better at night if AD-ENG-4 was repealed. As they sign out for another year an engine that may or may not go the distance some wonder who is liable if the engine fails in that period.
Cheers
TH
Bob
Paragraph 2.7 has always been in Schedule 5.
Schedule 5 was added to the CARs 17 years ago. (see: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/num...0/NL000530.htm)
Here's how to join the dots between a bugsmasher and Schedule 5:
Paragraph 2.7 has always been in Schedule 5.
Schedule 5 was added to the CARs 17 years ago. (see: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/num...0/NL000530.htm)
Here's how to join the dots between a bugsmasher and Schedule 5:
REG 41
Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
….
REG 42B
Maintenance schedule: CASA maintenance schedule
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), if:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft that is an aeroplane has elected to use the CASA maintenance schedule for the aircraft's maintenance; and
(b) the election is in force;
the aircraft's maintenance schedule is the CASA maintenance schedule.
(2) If:
(a) a person has elected to use the CASA maintenance schedule for an aircraft's maintenance; and
(b) a turbine engine is included in the aircraft;
all instructions issued by the manufacturer of the engine for the continued airworthiness of the engine are to be taken to form part of the CASA maintenance schedule and the election has effect accordingly.
Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
….
REG 42B
Maintenance schedule: CASA maintenance schedule
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), if:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft that is an aeroplane has elected to use the CASA maintenance schedule for the aircraft's maintenance; and
(b) the election is in force;
the aircraft's maintenance schedule is the CASA maintenance schedule.
(2) If:
(a) a person has elected to use the CASA maintenance schedule for an aircraft's maintenance; and
(b) a turbine engine is included in the aircraft;
all instructions issued by the manufacturer of the engine for the continued airworthiness of the engine are to be taken to form part of the CASA maintenance schedule and the election has effect accordingly.
PS: You're naughty, Leaddy.
You said:
[my bolding]
There is nothing in Schedule 5 of CARs (here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...1/PR007210.htm) that is 'a copy' of anything in Appendix D of FAR 43 (available through: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...a_regulations/)
You sure you've read both, big fella??
You said:
Schedule 5 [of CARs] is the equivalent of FAR 43, Appendix D, indeed it is a copy.
There is nothing in Schedule 5 of CARs (here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...1/PR007210.htm) that is 'a copy' of anything in Appendix D of FAR 43 (available through: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...a_regulations/)
You sure you've read both, big fella??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff;
My hard copy at hand of Commonwealth Ombudsman report into matter CASA and Murphie following complaint to CASA dated 7 October 1996 and investigation started 17 May 1999 states in concurrence with you;
"The COR holder may elect whether the maintenance is done in accordance with the aircraft manufacturers schedule or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) Schedule 5 unless there is an approved system of maintenance in force".
"on completion of the work, a LAME issues a maintenance release which is in effect certifying that those parts of the aircraft inspected will remain airworthy for the next 12 months or 100 flying hours, whichever comes first.
As previously mentioned I did a rewrite of schedule 5 (note amendments to prior posts which mentioned in typo schedule 4), which was commissioned after urging by the then Chairman of the CASA Board of Directors.
It was never published by CASA because of an obvious admission of liability on their part. It was passed onto AOPA.
Nowhere however, does schedule 5, as it's alternative to the manufacturers schedule, mention extending aircraft engines on a conditional report.
This is the function of the AD/ENG/4.
Prior to ED/ENG/4 amendment 7 there were NO on condition piston engines. All were specified in ANO's as hard time overhauls.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman report concluded in recommendation 3: "CASA to consider the accuracy of its advice about the suitability of CAR Schedule 5 and:
(i) Take any necessary appropriate action and,
(ii) advise Mr Murphie of its final position in regard to CAR Schedule 5.
Except for a "lame duck apology from the then Director of Aviation Safety, a thorough ringout by various Parliamentary Secretary's, I have had no further personal advice of definitive statements of changes.
It's been a long time between beers Creamy.
My hard copy at hand of Commonwealth Ombudsman report into matter CASA and Murphie following complaint to CASA dated 7 October 1996 and investigation started 17 May 1999 states in concurrence with you;
"The COR holder may elect whether the maintenance is done in accordance with the aircraft manufacturers schedule or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) Schedule 5 unless there is an approved system of maintenance in force".
"on completion of the work, a LAME issues a maintenance release which is in effect certifying that those parts of the aircraft inspected will remain airworthy for the next 12 months or 100 flying hours, whichever comes first.
As previously mentioned I did a rewrite of schedule 5 (note amendments to prior posts which mentioned in typo schedule 4), which was commissioned after urging by the then Chairman of the CASA Board of Directors.
It was never published by CASA because of an obvious admission of liability on their part. It was passed onto AOPA.
Nowhere however, does schedule 5, as it's alternative to the manufacturers schedule, mention extending aircraft engines on a conditional report.
This is the function of the AD/ENG/4.
Prior to ED/ENG/4 amendment 7 there were NO on condition piston engines. All were specified in ANO's as hard time overhauls.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman report concluded in recommendation 3: "CASA to consider the accuracy of its advice about the suitability of CAR Schedule 5 and:
(i) Take any necessary appropriate action and,
(ii) advise Mr Murphie of its final position in regard to CAR Schedule 5.
Except for a "lame duck apology from the then Director of Aviation Safety, a thorough ringout by various Parliamentary Secretary's, I have had no further personal advice of definitive statements of changes.
It's been a long time between beers Creamy.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 2nd Apr 2008 at 05:48.
Creamie, old mate,
Perhaps I should have phrased it a little more accurately:
Schedule 5 is and was based on and closely aligned with FAR 43, Appendix D.
Appendix D to Part 43—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
Plus the Australianisms, including the nonsense of para; 2.7.
Our yank mates have always managed to be more economical with words, and strangely enough their aeroplanes don't seem to fall out of the sky any more often than in Australia., indeed the opposite is the case --- have a close look at the raw NTSB v. ATSB data, and compare like with like.
Indeed, unbiased comparisons of the statistics suggests there is no correlation that suggests "more regulation = more safety"..
Although I must say, sitting through some of the consultative meeting, one could be forgiven for thinking that even those in sectors of industry are wedded to the idea that:" The greater the cubic volume of regulation, the greater the cubic volume of air safety". This notion is closely allied to the often voiced demand that we formulate regulations to control "perceived safety problems", even when the most diligent research can not show any link between the "perception of a safety problem" and the real world existence of the claimed critical aviation safety problem.
See the PCR Report and recommendations for regulatory change to address a "safety perception".
But!, Hey, "It stands to reason that more regulations will increase safety", a statement actually made in public, with many witnesses, within the last 21 days.
As the common CASA press release so often says :" More safety for xxxxxxxxx", fill in the name of the next place for safety seminar, and I keep having this crazy vision of somebody marching in with a whole bunch of boxes of "more safety".
Where, in these "more safety seminars" you can learn that you can "repair" a tyre's tube under Schedule 8, but not replace it with a new tube.
To avoid committing a serious strict liability offence, a breach of the Act, even, you should probably clean and repack the wheel bearing blindfold, to avoid looking at the condition of the bearings --- because that's an inspection, not authorized by Schedule 8 --- inspection is secret LAME business.
The one that always grabs me is:13. Replacement of batteries., which, to a simple fella, seems to suggest that Schedule 8 allows replacement of a battery. But as our ever diligent protectors of us from ourselves, and purveyors of "more safety" so carefully and condescendingly explain, this piece of rocket science requires, as do all maintenance tasks, CASA approved/approved/acceptable (take your pick) data.
Low and behold, all is revealed, every aeroplane battery manufacturer's data requires the battery to be "fully charged" before installation, and that requires a CAR 30 approved workshop plus "approved charger".
As for that hardened criminal element in aviation, who use solar powered trickle chargers on parked aircraft, cease and desist, unless the said charger is "approved" and is only being used pursuant to a CAR 30 approval. You wouldn't be so criminally inclined as to use on of those dinky little solar charges available in most pilot shops, would you?? You know the ones, they plug into the cigarette (sorry, Power Receptacle) lighter plug.
All you blokes and blokesses who routinely cleaned fouled plugs (a common enough byproduct of using 100LL in engines designed for 80/87) don't let me catch you using a Torque Wrench that doesn't have a current calibration test certificate ---- you all do use a torque wrench don't you? Just like your friendly family LAME, when he, she or it (my best non-discriminatory, non-sexist style) replaces a spark plug??
So, all you cowcockies who have a flat tyre or flat battery on the C-206, out the back of the machinery shed at Upper Binglebunglebone Station, your nearest LAME is only 500km away, resist the temptation to commit another blatant criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!
Perhaps I should have phrased it a little more accurately:
Schedule 5 is and was based on and closely aligned with FAR 43, Appendix D.
Appendix D to Part 43—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
Plus the Australianisms, including the nonsense of para; 2.7.
Our yank mates have always managed to be more economical with words, and strangely enough their aeroplanes don't seem to fall out of the sky any more often than in Australia., indeed the opposite is the case --- have a close look at the raw NTSB v. ATSB data, and compare like with like.
Indeed, unbiased comparisons of the statistics suggests there is no correlation that suggests "more regulation = more safety"..
Although I must say, sitting through some of the consultative meeting, one could be forgiven for thinking that even those in sectors of industry are wedded to the idea that:" The greater the cubic volume of regulation, the greater the cubic volume of air safety". This notion is closely allied to the often voiced demand that we formulate regulations to control "perceived safety problems", even when the most diligent research can not show any link between the "perception of a safety problem" and the real world existence of the claimed critical aviation safety problem.
See the PCR Report and recommendations for regulatory change to address a "safety perception".
But!, Hey, "It stands to reason that more regulations will increase safety", a statement actually made in public, with many witnesses, within the last 21 days.
As the common CASA press release so often says :" More safety for xxxxxxxxx", fill in the name of the next place for safety seminar, and I keep having this crazy vision of somebody marching in with a whole bunch of boxes of "more safety".
Where, in these "more safety seminars" you can learn that you can "repair" a tyre's tube under Schedule 8, but not replace it with a new tube.
To avoid committing a serious strict liability offence, a breach of the Act, even, you should probably clean and repack the wheel bearing blindfold, to avoid looking at the condition of the bearings --- because that's an inspection, not authorized by Schedule 8 --- inspection is secret LAME business.
The one that always grabs me is:13. Replacement of batteries., which, to a simple fella, seems to suggest that Schedule 8 allows replacement of a battery. But as our ever diligent protectors of us from ourselves, and purveyors of "more safety" so carefully and condescendingly explain, this piece of rocket science requires, as do all maintenance tasks, CASA approved/approved/acceptable (take your pick) data.
Low and behold, all is revealed, every aeroplane battery manufacturer's data requires the battery to be "fully charged" before installation, and that requires a CAR 30 approved workshop plus "approved charger".
As for that hardened criminal element in aviation, who use solar powered trickle chargers on parked aircraft, cease and desist, unless the said charger is "approved" and is only being used pursuant to a CAR 30 approval. You wouldn't be so criminally inclined as to use on of those dinky little solar charges available in most pilot shops, would you?? You know the ones, they plug into the cigarette (sorry, Power Receptacle) lighter plug.
All you blokes and blokesses who routinely cleaned fouled plugs (a common enough byproduct of using 100LL in engines designed for 80/87) don't let me catch you using a Torque Wrench that doesn't have a current calibration test certificate ---- you all do use a torque wrench don't you? Just like your friendly family LAME, when he, she or it (my best non-discriminatory, non-sexist style) replaces a spark plug??
So, all you cowcockies who have a flat tyre or flat battery on the C-206, out the back of the machinery shed at Upper Binglebunglebone Station, your nearest LAME is only 500km away, resist the temptation to commit another blatant criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It’s totally inappropriate for government agencies like
CASA or the ATSB to develop a framework, a rule
system for working, put it into a publication, hire a
bunch of people, and leave it for 20 years and keep
doing the same thing."
CASA or the ATSB to develop a framework, a rule
system for working, put it into a publication, hire a
bunch of people, and leave it for 20 years and keep
doing the same thing."
Such terminological inexactitude is disappointing, Leaddy.
As to the rest of your post, you have a (typically) pilo-centric and (typically) dangerous perception of how 'simple' aircraft maintenance is. Would you really fit spark plugs to an aircraft engine without using a calibrated torque wrench? LAMEs might do it, because they have done the job so many times that they have 'calibrated wrists'. But anyone else? You're joking, right?
Are you sure you understand the intricacies of proper battery maintenance?
How many people do you know who've been prosecuted for committing the offences you have identified? To the nearest 10 will do me.
As to the rest of your post, you have a (typically) pilo-centric and (typically) dangerous perception of how 'simple' aircraft maintenance is. Would you really fit spark plugs to an aircraft engine without using a calibrated torque wrench? LAMEs might do it, because they have done the job so many times that they have 'calibrated wrists'. But anyone else? You're joking, right?
Are you sure you understand the intricacies of proper battery maintenance?
How many people do you know who've been prosecuted for committing the offences you have identified? To the nearest 10 will do me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a bloke who was threatened with a show cause notice for having a tyre valve cap missing. Could possibly have fallen off in flight. The fact that he had a plane load of Magistrates on board to witness the bastardry held the balance of power in his favour.
I think the operative word here is "COULD" especially if "they" are out to get you.
I think the operative word here is "COULD" especially if "they" are out to get you.
I'm not interested in administrative action that was threatened.
I want to know how many people have actually been prosecuted for doing the things Leaddy has identified as offences.
I want to know how many people have actually been prosecuted for doing the things Leaddy has identified as offences.