Australian Aviation Regulations.
Saw the Light,
Nothing like only telling half the story for a reaction, is there!!
Said MA holder is one of the most qualified people in Australia, engineering wise, on the particular type and model of helicopter. All as a result of factory training on type, and manufacturer endorsement and support of his qualifications and experience.
To the degree that he is a technical point of reference in Australia for the manufacturer !! The go to many if you have a problem with the same aircraft.
CASA made no mistake in issuing the MAs (multiple) originally, the refusal to re-issue had more to do with " I had to do a five year apprenticeship to change sparkplugs" approach to qualifications, therefor everybody who hasn't done a five year apprenticeship must keep their greasy fingers odd.
------- Completely ignoring the matter of competency based qualifications and training, and there is no doubt in the minds of those who issued the MAs in the first place, or the AAT, of the competency of the person, regardless of the fact that he had not done a traditional apprenticeship.
Said person also has one of the most comprehensively equipped maintenance workshops for helos. Including a complete battery room for NiCad battery maintenance to manufacturer's standards---- how many of those at YSBK ---- one? none?
In my opinion, it is a condemnation of the CASA system, that middle level managers attempted to take advantage of high level management changes in CASA to "settle old scores", and remove long held and well deserved qualifications.
Tootle pip!!
Nothing like only telling half the story for a reaction, is there!!
Said MA holder is one of the most qualified people in Australia, engineering wise, on the particular type and model of helicopter. All as a result of factory training on type, and manufacturer endorsement and support of his qualifications and experience.
To the degree that he is a technical point of reference in Australia for the manufacturer !! The go to many if you have a problem with the same aircraft.
CASA made no mistake in issuing the MAs (multiple) originally, the refusal to re-issue had more to do with " I had to do a five year apprenticeship to change sparkplugs" approach to qualifications, therefor everybody who hasn't done a five year apprenticeship must keep their greasy fingers odd.
------- Completely ignoring the matter of competency based qualifications and training, and there is no doubt in the minds of those who issued the MAs in the first place, or the AAT, of the competency of the person, regardless of the fact that he had not done a traditional apprenticeship.
Said person also has one of the most comprehensively equipped maintenance workshops for helos. Including a complete battery room for NiCad battery maintenance to manufacturer's standards---- how many of those at YSBK ---- one? none?
In my opinion, it is a condemnation of the CASA system, that middle level managers attempted to take advantage of high level management changes in CASA to "settle old scores", and remove long held and well deserved qualifications.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, you might do well to re-think most of your post. Do you seriously expect us to believe that ECD, holder of an EASA Part 147 Approval could/would issue an engineer/mechanic type rating to an individual who did not hold a basic engineer/mechanic license? Could it be that you are in fact Mr Green in disguise, or did he pay you to print the BS below?
You really must got out more and discover that the real situation is somewhat different to what you believe. If you care to pm me with your "facts" I am in a position to help you with the reality of the situation.
(Will he overspeed them again this time?)
STL
You really must got out more and discover that the real situation is somewhat different to what you believe. If you care to pm me with your "facts" I am in a position to help you with the reality of the situation.
(Will he overspeed them again this time?)
STL
Lightseer,
No, I am most certainly not the gentleman you unwisely referred to by name, but that is your problem - and pprune's.
But I am quite capable of reading court/tribunal affidavits/ transcripts/judgements, my source of information, what is your source??
First hand disgruntled or second + hand misinformed??
I am quite certain of my facts, all I will add is that there are many MAs in the system, and in my opinion, of those of which I have personal knowledge, far less qualified persons than the subject gentleman have been granted (in some cases, extraordinarily) broad MAs by CASA.
Actually, I will add another for your consideration, just have a really close look at the new Part 66 details, it is possible for a person who has never done any kind of apprenticeship, or held a LAME "traditional" license of any kind --- to sign out return to service documents under a Part 42/CAMO ( and later, a Part 145) ---- this is not to say they are unqualified, just that the extensive qualifications required were not achieved via an apprenticeship.
In short, one of the features (flexibility) of the EASA (nee JAA) system.
Tootle pip!!
No, I am most certainly not the gentleman you unwisely referred to by name, but that is your problem - and pprune's.
But I am quite capable of reading court/tribunal affidavits/ transcripts/judgements, my source of information, what is your source??
First hand disgruntled or second + hand misinformed??
I am quite certain of my facts, all I will add is that there are many MAs in the system, and in my opinion, of those of which I have personal knowledge, far less qualified persons than the subject gentleman have been granted (in some cases, extraordinarily) broad MAs by CASA.
Actually, I will add another for your consideration, just have a really close look at the new Part 66 details, it is possible for a person who has never done any kind of apprenticeship, or held a LAME "traditional" license of any kind --- to sign out return to service documents under a Part 42/CAMO ( and later, a Part 145) ---- this is not to say they are unqualified, just that the extensive qualifications required were not achieved via an apprenticeship.
In short, one of the features (flexibility) of the EASA (nee JAA) system.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
To put it another way, If I fly an aircraft, I'm a felon unless I can prove otherwise.
This is inequitable.
...And paradoxically, since I have the resources that allow me to fly, I have more to lose by flying.
This is inequitable.
...And paradoxically, since I have the resources that allow me to fly, I have more to lose by flying.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled.
I work within the JAA and EASA systems as a pilot, a mechanic and in administration and have done so for several years. I am well aware of its structure and content. I also have a very good understanding of the current and "new" Australian regs. Disgruntled, second + hand, misinformed? Quite the contrary. This discussion was on the Australian Aviation Regulations, their complexity and their often mis-guided decisions.
I have no problem mentioning Mr Green on this forum as he is the subject of a publicised detailed article in a prominent Australian aviation magazine wherein he very publicly berates CASA and the Australian Regulations. He is obviously willing to have himself included in public discussion on the matter.
You do at least acknowledge CASA grants MA's to unqualified recipients. Isn't this a matter of concern to you, and isn't it worthy of inclusion in a discussion on the thread subject?
I work within the JAA and EASA systems as a pilot, a mechanic and in administration and have done so for several years. I am well aware of its structure and content. I also have a very good understanding of the current and "new" Australian regs. Disgruntled, second + hand, misinformed? Quite the contrary. This discussion was on the Australian Aviation Regulations, their complexity and their often mis-guided decisions.
I have no problem mentioning Mr Green on this forum as he is the subject of a publicised detailed article in a prominent Australian aviation magazine wherein he very publicly berates CASA and the Australian Regulations. He is obviously willing to have himself included in public discussion on the matter.
You do at least acknowledge CASA grants MA's to unqualified recipients. Isn't this a matter of concern to you, and isn't it worthy of inclusion in a discussion on the thread subject?
Lead sled,
Its been a long time coming.....
I read what you write everytime, and much of it is very good,..........but the "tootle pip" condescending sh!te at the end loses me every time.
I worked with a few condescending w@nkers in the past who used it - generally a thankfully small minority of the white glove wearing ex-RAF brigade, or the similarly moulded ex-public school boy club, whose egos exceeded their abilities or capabilities. Mostly condescending, arrogant knobs, really.
Don't want to make an enemy, because your input is great! But with those two words at the end of every post, you lose so much credibility.
Its been a long time coming.....
I read what you write everytime, and much of it is very good,..........but the "tootle pip" condescending sh!te at the end loses me every time.
I worked with a few condescending w@nkers in the past who used it - generally a thankfully small minority of the white glove wearing ex-RAF brigade, or the similarly moulded ex-public school boy club, whose egos exceeded their abilities or capabilities. Mostly condescending, arrogant knobs, really.
Don't want to make an enemy, because your input is great! But with those two words at the end of every post, you lose so much credibility.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I get pretty peeved with Juliar Gillard's nasal quasi Ozi working classs condescending voice, and I would even go so far as to be "precious" about it.
hooroo cobber!
hooroo cobber!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic;
Stand by for breaking news about another monumental CASA loss. From what I can gather it has probably only cost us taxpayers half a million so far, so we should be thankful.
This will be a Ministerial intervention.
I can't be more specific at this stage, but it relates to bastardry and an eleventh hour protocol action during a hearing which was completely at odds with the ministerial Directive to be a model litagent.
Stand by for breaking news about another monumental CASA loss. From what I can gather it has probably only cost us taxpayers half a million so far, so we should be thankful.
This will be a Ministerial intervention.
I can't be more specific at this stage, but it relates to bastardry and an eleventh hour protocol action during a hearing which was completely at odds with the ministerial Directive to be a model litagent.
Ramble On,
I borrowed "tootle pip" from one of my favourite characters in Biggles, which seems appropriate all too often, with some of the fiction on pprune pages.
It was an expression widely used in my youth. Sorry if upsets you, certainly not intended.
Lightseer,
Maybe you've been blinded by the light.
If CASA grants an MA, by definition (in law, at least) the person holding the MA IS qualified in terms of the limits to the MA. By signing an MA the Director or his delegate is finding that the MA holder is qualified.
Believe me, in the EASA system, an apprenticeship (or equivalent) is not the only way to an A&P. Maybe the most common, but not the only way.
Nor should it be in Australia, the ONLY criteria should be demonstrated competence. However you have gained and demonstrated the competence, you should be entitled to an MA on application. Remember Father Joe in PNG !!
CASA is strictly a safety regulator only ( have a close look at the Civil Aviation Act 1988) and any regulation or action by CASA that might be a restraint of trade, or overt commercial regulation by decision ( or lack of requested decision) making, (notwithstanding some incomplete transition provisions in the CARs, cf: CAR 206) is ultra vires the CAA 1988.
Aviation is very slow in catching up with what has been the norm in many other trades, often far more technically challenging that any work carried out by the average LAME. Applying 18th Century traditions to the 21st Century doesn't have much going for it.
Indeed, Mr. Green will tell you (on very good grounds) that the reason he did all the personal qualifications he did, and sought the necessary MA, is because of demonstrated incompetence (in at least one case, seriously life threatening --- and all documented for CASA's benefit) of theoretically qualified persons, by virtue of the traditional apprenticeship, experiences and LAME licenses --- and shortcomings thereof.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have been long amused by the problem of maintenance of some amateur built aircraft, the owner/builder can be "qualified" to build and certify the the aircraft, but can be "incompetent" to maintain the aircraft once it is certificated, a problem only partially dealt with so far.
I await a set of GA maintenance rules, to see what happens next ---- the signs are not promising ---- with the latest requirement for what is, effectively, an Airworthiness Administration basic course being required, despite the fact that there has been no demonstrated safety case to justify same ---- just lobbying by conflicted groups.
Quite what the safety benefit to Experimental Amateur Built aircraft is, from acquiring a working knowledge of the Chicago Convention, and Annex 8 in particular, is totally lost on me.
I borrowed "tootle pip" from one of my favourite characters in Biggles, which seems appropriate all too often, with some of the fiction on pprune pages.
It was an expression widely used in my youth. Sorry if upsets you, certainly not intended.
Lightseer,
Maybe you've been blinded by the light.
If CASA grants an MA, by definition (in law, at least) the person holding the MA IS qualified in terms of the limits to the MA. By signing an MA the Director or his delegate is finding that the MA holder is qualified.
Believe me, in the EASA system, an apprenticeship (or equivalent) is not the only way to an A&P. Maybe the most common, but not the only way.
Nor should it be in Australia, the ONLY criteria should be demonstrated competence. However you have gained and demonstrated the competence, you should be entitled to an MA on application. Remember Father Joe in PNG !!
CASA is strictly a safety regulator only ( have a close look at the Civil Aviation Act 1988) and any regulation or action by CASA that might be a restraint of trade, or overt commercial regulation by decision ( or lack of requested decision) making, (notwithstanding some incomplete transition provisions in the CARs, cf: CAR 206) is ultra vires the CAA 1988.
Aviation is very slow in catching up with what has been the norm in many other trades, often far more technically challenging that any work carried out by the average LAME. Applying 18th Century traditions to the 21st Century doesn't have much going for it.
Indeed, Mr. Green will tell you (on very good grounds) that the reason he did all the personal qualifications he did, and sought the necessary MA, is because of demonstrated incompetence (in at least one case, seriously life threatening --- and all documented for CASA's benefit) of theoretically qualified persons, by virtue of the traditional apprenticeship, experiences and LAME licenses --- and shortcomings thereof.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have been long amused by the problem of maintenance of some amateur built aircraft, the owner/builder can be "qualified" to build and certify the the aircraft, but can be "incompetent" to maintain the aircraft once it is certificated, a problem only partially dealt with so far.
I await a set of GA maintenance rules, to see what happens next ---- the signs are not promising ---- with the latest requirement for what is, effectively, an Airworthiness Administration basic course being required, despite the fact that there has been no demonstrated safety case to justify same ---- just lobbying by conflicted groups.
Quite what the safety benefit to Experimental Amateur Built aircraft is, from acquiring a working knowledge of the Chicago Convention, and Annex 8 in particular, is totally lost on me.
Thread Starter
Having done the course. it is valuable. It builds a foundation on which other stuff can be built.
What is annoying howevr isa set of regulations that are built like a photographic negative - whatever is not prohibited, and most everything is, might be legal if there is not some overlapping regulation that closes that avenue of compliance.
Take part 91 for example; if an aircraft is fitted with a beacon, it is an offense to start an engine without switching it on.
What happens if it goes U/S in flight or after you have already examined it during your pre flight? You have no entry in the MR about the defect, and it is unclear to me if the aircraft would even be allowed to fly.
The obvious solution is therefore to remove the beacon completely.
Cessna seems to have also adopted this stratagem. There are now no landing and takeoff charts in the c172 POH - just short field charts.
What is annoying howevr isa set of regulations that are built like a photographic negative - whatever is not prohibited, and most everything is, might be legal if there is not some overlapping regulation that closes that avenue of compliance.
Take part 91 for example; if an aircraft is fitted with a beacon, it is an offense to start an engine without switching it on.
What happens if it goes U/S in flight or after you have already examined it during your pre flight? You have no entry in the MR about the defect, and it is unclear to me if the aircraft would even be allowed to fly.
The obvious solution is therefore to remove the beacon completely.
Cessna seems to have also adopted this stratagem. There are now no landing and takeoff charts in the c172 POH - just short field charts.
Having done the course. it is valuable. It builds a foundation on which other stuff can be built.
Is that in an intellectual sense or in a practical maintenance sense ---- there is almost nothing in the course about hands on maintenance --- what there is almost (delete almost) every builder would be well aware.
Largely it is the "Airworthiness Administration" basic syllabus for AME/LAME just starting out. It came straight from CASA, it was NOT a syllabus worked out by SAAA to provide something useful for amateur builders.
As I have already said, we have done without it since 1998, without obvious safety impact. Where is the cost/benefit of this imposition??
If it addressed the known problems that have occurred, there might be some point, but that is the one thing it does not do.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It came straight from CASA, it was NOT a syllabus worked out by SAAA to provide something useful for amateur builders.
As I have already said, we have done without it since 1998, without obvious safety impact. Where is the cost/benefit of this imposition??
If it addressed the known problems that have occurred, there might be some point, but that is the one thing it does not do.
If it addressed the known problems that have occurred, there might be some point, but that is the one thing it does not do.
If that is not proactive in preventing some incidents in the future I do not know what is. If you think otherwise it would suggest you are advising QF on their maintenance of late.
Just to get a few facts on the table....now back to normal viewing.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the Federal Full Court Decision for another CASA stuff up.
CASA v Ovens June 06, 2011 FCAFC-FCA.
I'm having difficulty in getting a link.
Anybody help?
CASA v Ovens June 06, 2011 FCAFC-FCA.
I'm having difficulty in getting a link.
Anybody help?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't see the Light
I feel really sorry for "Saw the Light". Perhaps if he were to open his eyes and check his facts he might see the light. If he were to check his facts, he would discover that the reason why the AAT over-ruled the CASA bureaucrats is because I was able to prove more technical background and type-specific training and more hands-on practical maintenance experience on type than a regular LAME.
----discovered AC43 for the first time.
Strange, every amateur builder I know has his or her hard copy of AC43.13 A & B as the bible. As for LAMEs not knowing about it?? It's incorporated in just about any CAR 30 Maintenance Approval docs. that I have dealt with ----- although it (and much else similar) is now automatically "approved data" ---- see the instrument, too hard for me to find the reference this late in the evening.
Tootle pip!!
----discovered AC43 for the first time.
Strange, every amateur builder I know has his or her hard copy of AC43.13 A & B as the bible. As for LAMEs not knowing about it?? It's incorporated in just about any CAR 30 Maintenance Approval docs. that I have dealt with ----- although it (and much else similar) is now automatically "approved data" ---- see the instrument, too hard for me to find the reference this late in the evening.
Tootle pip!!
PS: You realize, of course, that other than a source of handy hints, AC 43 is not applicable to N- amateur built --- read FAR 43 to find out why, and that is part of the problem here, the confusion about applying continuing airworthiness rules for standard cat. aircraft to various experimental and limited categories.
CASA have been well aware of what to do to fix our rules since 1999, but have continually failed to make a very simple regulatory change ---- because CASA would (or those middle ranking types, more properly) would lose a little bit of "control".
