Experimental Maintenance Requirements

[Oracle1]

Seems sensible to me

I stand corrected. It seems the changes are quite sensible and that the 49 51 rule still applies for owner builder maintenance.Allowing a builder to sell their RV8 and buy an RV10 and still be allowed to maintain it is a step in the right direction to protecting the assett value of the Experimental fleet. IFR instruments must be calibrated and signed of by a LAME an eminently sensible rule. If i build my aircraft I can maintain it without having to have an approved workshop and LAME sign off on it providing its VFR. That's all I am concerned about. The short course that has been introduced is apparently just paperwork to educate the builder about compliance and regs. As a level 2 I am still stunned that the 150 was allowed on the register, at 544 kg it isn"t a viable aircraft

[Arnold E]

The short course that has been introduced is apparently just paperwork to educate the builder about compliance and regs.

Not as I understand it. A LAME builder owner cant sign of his own experimental aircraft without the Saaa course. Ridiculous, I know, but that is how I understand it

[Vag277]

Arnold

See the intro to the CAAP. This process is the basis for authorisation for some one other than a LAME under Reg 42 ZC (4) (e)

3. Background

3.1 Subsection 20AB(2) of the

Civil Aviation Act 1988 prescribes a penalty of 2 years imprisonment for any person performing maintenance on an Australian aircraft or aeronautical product if they are not permitted by Regulations to do so.

3.2 Unless otherwise permitted; supervision and certification of maintenance of aircraft may only be carried out by a LAME holding a Part 66 licence with the appropriate category and subcategory, or a person holding either a CAR 33B Airworthiness Authority, or a CAR 33D Welding Authority.

3.3 Regulation 42ZC (4)(e) of CAR 1988 makes provision for CASA to authorise a person other than a LAME or airworthiness/welding authority holder to do maintenance and it is under this provision that CASA authorises individuals to maintain amateur-built aircraft. The authorisation is provided by means of an Instrument which is published by CASA (currently Instrument number CASA 146/11).

[VH-XXX]

Allowing a builder to sell their RV8 and buy an RV10 and still be allowed to maintain it

I would to know if CASA have actually given approval to many of these requests. The example is from a RV4 upwards but would love to know if they would give one from an 8 to 10.... I could imagine a 2 seat Jabiru to a 4 would be do-able but a 10 would be interesting.

[Arnold E]

some one other than a LAME under Reg 42 ZC (4) (e)

With reference to the LAME, its my understanding that this only applies to A&E Lame's with groups 1&3. but still an Avionics Lame, for instance, cant sign off his own aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

XXX

An 8 to a 6 to a 10, there is nothing in it.

As you know I have my head around all models, from 6 to 12.

CASA are heading down the right track. Some guidance to follow no doubt. This is not my direct area of influence, but suffice to say I have a far better grip of the situation than Leadsled believes. Despite what happened at the recent AWAL agm, and I think he has made a grave error ...... Maybe had a nanna nap at a critical moment.

There is very little secretive even here on pprune. Who do you reckon is closer to the facts on this



PS, Arnold, I believe you are correct, and for this case it would seem an MPC is the only barrier, you just like an AME are probably as well versed as anyone, but there is always going to be an e ceptional case. Unfortunately as it stands it is you. Sucks, but do not blame SAAA they did not create the problem you have. Better still, get involved and be part of the solution my friend


Speculate and BS all you like folks

[Blowie]

Vag277

Blowie - Not quite correct.

Actually, I quoted verbatim from the AWAL bulletin.

The issue of Experimental certificates is for many more purposes. The CASA/AWAL issue relates to operation of Warbirds for which the Limited categiry was established.

Not quite Vag277. The experimental purpose called exhibition was established to allow the operation of those aircraft. Limited was established to allow opportunities to earn an income from historic, warbird, and replica aircraft, but using a reg instead of an exemption as the yanks do.

[Jack Ranga]

It may actually be easier going from an 8 to a 10

Leadsled should use his knowledge for good not evil (and bull****)

[Arnold E]

but do not blame SAAA they did not create the problem you have.

Not blaming Saaa Jabba, but am working on a solution.

[Creampuff]

Oh dear ….. Looks like the sadly-familiar and often-fatal mixture of dwindling dollars, petty politics and an over-supply of bush lawyers.

[T28D]

Creamy, a very accurate summation of the situation. Writs at 10paces

[T28D]

Censorship by Pprune moderator , what next, I thought this was an open forum, so will rumours will be next for our moderator to expunge.

Jeff Muller of Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) has contacted AviationAdvertiser regarding our recent article. Mr Muller suggests that 99% of the article contains errors of fact and that it is not representative of the issues at hand. In fairness to all readers we have therefore returned the article to the drafts folder and accepted the offer from AWAL representatives Jeff Muller and Steve Crocker to provide a comprehensive briefing.
We trust that this will result in a transparent analysis that will benefit our readers and others interested in warbird and other aviation across Australia, so that our readers will have a well informed view of the whole situation.
We thank the large number of readers who have expressed interest, but Mr Muller understands that this process will take a couple of days, because of an illness and also the need to clear any statement with his board.
We pride ourselves on getting the facts right because our founding principles are the provisiof well-informed comment and news.
We’ll notify readers for whom we have addresses by e-mail when AWAL’s statement is published. AWAL understands that his publication may lead to further dialogue

[Jack Ranga]

Why can't everybody just be friends?

[Creampuff]

Censorship by PPRuNe moderator , what next, I thought this was an open forum, so will rumours will be next for our moderator to expunge.

You haven’t been paying very close attention. Defamatory material is frequently removed from PPRuNe posts, and rightly so. If you want to defame someone, do it at your risk, alone, rather than exposing the publishers of PPRuNe to liability as well.

And BTW, who ‘censored’ the article by removing it from the Aviation Advertiser site, and why?

Mr Muller suggests that 99% of the article contains errors of fact and that it is not representative of the issues at hand. In fairness to all readers we have therefore returned the article to the drafts folder and accepted the offer from AWAL representatives Jeff Muller and Steve Crocker to provide a comprehensive briefing.

Errrrm …. surely the folks at the Aviation Advertiser confirmed the facts before publishing the original article. After all, the Aviation Advertiser “pride ourselves on getting the facts right”.

They wouldn’t have made the mistake of parroting half a story told by serial bush lawyer pests. Surely not….

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The post was edited not so much because of it's content, which may or may not be true, it's not for us mods to decide; but because

a) Pprune was threatened with legal action by a representative of AWAL if it stayed up there

b) Pprune rules, PPRuNe Forums - FAQ: PPRuNe Rules which you agreed to when you joined, state, among other things;
"•No links to other aviation websites"



You are very welcome to start your own forum with your own rules to discuss this matter!