CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA definitely barking up the wrong tree here. Barrier's one of the better operators in the top end. From what ive heard, they never expect their pilots to do anymore than they feel comfortable with. So with CASA saying they force their pilots to fly u/s aircraft, then it'll be interesting to see what comes out in court.
I know of other operators who have made their pilots fly u/s aircraft, simply because they employ low hour pilots. If the pilots kick up a stink they'll show them the door and get someone else in. In fact the Barrier pilots were the ones getting paid out for grounding their aircraft.
Lets face it, GA is in a hole right now (thanks to CASA). Barrier seems like one of those operators who care about their staff, as if they work a 'normal-non-aviation' job! If they go under then GA's sinking further into the ground. Is this the beginning of the end?
I know of other operators who have made their pilots fly u/s aircraft, simply because they employ low hour pilots. If the pilots kick up a stink they'll show them the door and get someone else in. In fact the Barrier pilots were the ones getting paid out for grounding their aircraft.
Lets face it, GA is in a hole right now (thanks to CASA). Barrier seems like one of those operators who care about their staff, as if they work a 'normal-non-aviation' job! If they go under then GA's sinking further into the ground. Is this the beginning of the end?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a classic demonstration of how inane current Australian regulations and their enforcement have become and the cost impact
on the industry contained in an article by Paul Phelan in the aviation advertiser.
A company operated a light jet into Bathurst, about a 15 to 20 minute flight from Home base Bankstown.
On landing the PIC found the HF aerial had detached and was trailing behind the aircraft.
Now I would have thought just get the local engineer to undo the other end and ferry to Bankstown, HF is hardly required on that leg.
Nevertheless the pilot did the right thing and notified the maintenance controller who notified CASA. Ah its an aerial, therefore radio, therefore a LAME is not qualified to undo one hexagonal nut, so the company had to dispatch an E&I guy in another aircraft to remove the hexagonal nut.
Doesn't end there...an engineering order must be issued because equipment has been removed from the aircraft $600 bucks thank you, Oh and removing that aerial US's the HF so you need a PUS to fly the aircraft
another $600 Bucks thank you, too late in the afternoon to issue that come back tomorrow.
End result about ten grand for a 50 cent fix, a patient booked for surgery in Sydney sent back to the local hospital, crew overnighted etc.
This is basically regulation for fees or profits or directors bonuses take your pick.
There is a limit to what the punters are prepared to pay for a service, that's what these clowns at CASA do not realize. As it gets more and more expensive through crap regulation so they will look for alternatives.
I have heard of clients dropping their weekly trip to the country as too expensive and catching a regional to an intermediate point then renting a
car for the rest of the journey. Great thing about that is if they kill themselves on the road CASA is blameless.
Complicated indecipherable Regulation does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Mountains of paper work and tics in boxes does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Need an example look to the USA, its two thirds cheaper to charter the same aircraft there as here, and they leave Australia for dead in the safety stakes.
Mr Phelan also has a great article on the Australian Aviation Associations Forum Aviation Policy, I would recommend everyone read it, it can be downloaded from the Regional Airline association Web sight. Get behind them while we still have an industry.
on the industry contained in an article by Paul Phelan in the aviation advertiser.
A company operated a light jet into Bathurst, about a 15 to 20 minute flight from Home base Bankstown.
On landing the PIC found the HF aerial had detached and was trailing behind the aircraft.
Now I would have thought just get the local engineer to undo the other end and ferry to Bankstown, HF is hardly required on that leg.
Nevertheless the pilot did the right thing and notified the maintenance controller who notified CASA. Ah its an aerial, therefore radio, therefore a LAME is not qualified to undo one hexagonal nut, so the company had to dispatch an E&I guy in another aircraft to remove the hexagonal nut.
Doesn't end there...an engineering order must be issued because equipment has been removed from the aircraft $600 bucks thank you, Oh and removing that aerial US's the HF so you need a PUS to fly the aircraft
another $600 Bucks thank you, too late in the afternoon to issue that come back tomorrow.
End result about ten grand for a 50 cent fix, a patient booked for surgery in Sydney sent back to the local hospital, crew overnighted etc.
This is basically regulation for fees or profits or directors bonuses take your pick.
There is a limit to what the punters are prepared to pay for a service, that's what these clowns at CASA do not realize. As it gets more and more expensive through crap regulation so they will look for alternatives.
I have heard of clients dropping their weekly trip to the country as too expensive and catching a regional to an intermediate point then renting a
car for the rest of the journey. Great thing about that is if they kill themselves on the road CASA is blameless.
Complicated indecipherable Regulation does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Mountains of paper work and tics in boxes does NOT lead to safety, education does.
Need an example look to the USA, its two thirds cheaper to charter the same aircraft there as here, and they leave Australia for dead in the safety stakes.
Mr Phelan also has a great article on the Australian Aviation Associations Forum Aviation Policy, I would recommend everyone read it, it can be downloaded from the Regional Airline association Web sight. Get behind them while we still have an industry.
Last edited by thorn bird; 6th Jan 2013 at 10:41.
Defenestrator
Thanks for that. I’m actually sympathetic to Shed Dog Tosser’s point of view. The point I’ve been trying to make with him though is he must do it within the current rules. All MEL’s CDL’s and systems of maintenance must be accepted by CASA. Your company has quite clearly had the enlightenment to get such a system approved. It truly amazes me there are some operators out there that still operate to a generic MR and 100 hourly’s.
Thanks for that. I’m actually sympathetic to Shed Dog Tosser’s point of view. The point I’ve been trying to make with him though is he must do it within the current rules. All MEL’s CDL’s and systems of maintenance must be accepted by CASA. Your company has quite clearly had the enlightenment to get such a system approved. It truly amazes me there are some operators out there that still operate to a generic MR and 100 hourly’s.
It is interesting to see what some pilots are prepared to fly. I had recently a situation where there was a 310 that I could have been asked to fly on. The right engine was no problem, we routinely start engines for various tests. The left engine, however was a totally different ball game. Was very difficult to start and could only be kept running in the first few minutes by turning the boost pump on and off. When it was warm it would idle, sort of. Now here was a situation where the engine had an obvious fault. Now the pilot turns up (also a LAME) and says, yep it is always like that.
Pardon?? that engine was obviously faulty, ( to the extent that I would not fly in the aircraft), yet the pilot was quite happy to jump in and fly it away, and put passengers in it the next day. Not a "dicky bird on the MR".
On top of that, the aircraft was a general piece of junk!
Pardon?? that engine was obviously faulty, ( to the extent that I would not fly in the aircraft), yet the pilot was quite happy to jump in and fly it away, and put passengers in it the next day. Not a "dicky bird on the MR".
On top of that, the aircraft was a general piece of junk!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snags Vs Defects
there is clearly a difference if you are prepared to think about it.
Unofficial snag logs do have benefits, if used correctly.
The first thing to do is make sure it is on board the a/c.
I used to direct hire a lovely arrow that had an on board snag log. there were 5 pilots authorised to use the aircraft and we used the snag log to record observations. The 5 of us rarely met up so it was our way of communicating the aeroplanes status.
I returned from a night flight once, noted a fault and wasn't sure if i should put it on the MR, made a note in the snag log with the annotation MR entry required??? I wasn't calling the owner at 3am in the morning
I wasn't sure!
the aircraft flew the next day, and that pilot contacted the owner and transferred my snag to the MR. the item only affected IFR flight not vfr so that was fine.
Another time i collected the aircraft, the entry in the snag log was that the the cargo net had failed. Not enough to ground the aircraft, but affected my flight as i needed the net for the return journey. If it wasn't there i would have embarked on my trip only to find i had a problem at the other end.
A good snag log should be:-
1. available to all that operate the aircraft
2. Include a column for snags resolution. i.e entered onto MR or scheduled for next 100 hrly.
Whilst they are not regulated, i think they have a place if available to the pilot
Unofficial snag logs do have benefits, if used correctly.
The first thing to do is make sure it is on board the a/c.
I used to direct hire a lovely arrow that had an on board snag log. there were 5 pilots authorised to use the aircraft and we used the snag log to record observations. The 5 of us rarely met up so it was our way of communicating the aeroplanes status.
I returned from a night flight once, noted a fault and wasn't sure if i should put it on the MR, made a note in the snag log with the annotation MR entry required??? I wasn't calling the owner at 3am in the morning
I wasn't sure!the aircraft flew the next day, and that pilot contacted the owner and transferred my snag to the MR. the item only affected IFR flight not vfr so that was fine.
Another time i collected the aircraft, the entry in the snag log was that the the cargo net had failed. Not enough to ground the aircraft, but affected my flight as i needed the net for the return journey. If it wasn't there i would have embarked on my trip only to find i had a problem at the other end.
A good snag log should be:-
1. available to all that operate the aircraft
2. Include a column for snags resolution. i.e entered onto MR or scheduled for next 100 hrly.
Whilst they are not regulated, i think they have a place if available to the pilot
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the guy above me..
It WAS a MR required entry, OK, you didnt know that.
But what if it was a VFR required item. Or the next guy flew it IFR..
It WAS a MR required entry, OK, you didnt know that.
But what if it was a VFR required item. Or the next guy flew it IFR..
heck the snag might be as simple as a torn seat trim. Not enough to ground the a/c but probably one that the owner wants fixed next maintenance.
so many times i have seen aeroplanes go into maint with similar faults that the owner wanted fixed, and they come back the same because it wasn't documented
Last edited by jas24zzk; 6th Jan 2013 at 13:23.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: The Outback
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you might not have been in the game at the time, but the same situation happened in Albury NSW in the 80's to a company called arcas airways.
It caused everyone involved, including CASA, a lot of grief and there was a senate enquiry. Google Arcas airways and it will lead you to a CASA article as recent as 2000. Note the recommendations.
CASA has a lot of precedent on the subject and nothing will change re snags/defects. Believe me, after 46 years as a LAME, the rule hasn't and won't change. I have been stung in my life.
Alligator air is the latest example.
Not entering unserviceabilities on the MR is like falsifying your tax return.
It caused everyone involved, including CASA, a lot of grief and there was a senate enquiry. Google Arcas airways and it will lead you to a CASA article as recent as 2000. Note the recommendations.
CASA has a lot of precedent on the subject and nothing will change re snags/defects. Believe me, after 46 years as a LAME, the rule hasn't and won't change. I have been stung in my life.
Alligator air is the latest example.
Not entering unserviceabilities on the MR is like falsifying your tax return.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: The Outback
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While everyone is going on this "black letter" technicality with all the wisdom of a " bush lawyer", remember it is not only CASA that takes an interest in the documentation. The aircraft insurer might find the lack of documentation could jeopardise a claim if an accident occurs!!!!!
jas24zzk
As I said a few posts back I sympathise with your point of view but every time you conduct a flight in this manner you as the PIC put your balls on the line. The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”. If, god forbid you were involved in an accident and survived, even if you weren’t at fault, as well as being hung out to dry by CASA without a leg to stand on you would, as alluded to by weighman, most likely be held financially liable for everything i.e. hull loss/damage and injury/loss of life to pax by the insurance company. Hell even the DPP for the state could even have grounds to charge you with manslaughter. I’m not sure how you would set up a system for a privately own aircraft but I’m sure someone here would be willing to give you some advice or at least point you and the owner of the aircraft you fly in the right direction.
As I said a few posts back I sympathise with your point of view but every time you conduct a flight in this manner you as the PIC put your balls on the line. The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”. If, god forbid you were involved in an accident and survived, even if you weren’t at fault, as well as being hung out to dry by CASA without a leg to stand on you would, as alluded to by weighman, most likely be held financially liable for everything i.e. hull loss/damage and injury/loss of life to pax by the insurance company. Hell even the DPP for the state could even have grounds to charge you with manslaughter. I’m not sure how you would set up a system for a privately own aircraft but I’m sure someone here would be willing to give you some advice or at least point you and the owner of the aircraft you fly in the right direction.
What I think appears to be happening is the confusion over the question of the condition of a bit of aircraft system which has a continuous range of values (eg Oil pressure) and a bit of system that has onlyTwo possible values (ie: works/doesn't work).
If CASA wish to mandate that an aircraft for charter has to have a working landing light today even though the aircraft is only tasked to perform day vfr operations, then while it may be costly and unnecessary to ground the aircraft until its fixed, it's the law unless you have a MEL or PUS. The question then becomes what is the cheapest way to generate those documents?
What concerns me is the allegation by some here that the recording of condition information, even within limits, on the MR requires a sign off by a LAME.
For example, if I write up a dodgy autopilot in an MR (which I have once) is anybody alleging that the aircraft cannot be flown legally in non commercial operations without a sign off from someone?
If CASA wish to mandate that an aircraft for charter has to have a working landing light today even though the aircraft is only tasked to perform day vfr operations, then while it may be costly and unnecessary to ground the aircraft until its fixed, it's the law unless you have a MEL or PUS. The question then becomes what is the cheapest way to generate those documents?
What concerns me is the allegation by some here that the recording of condition information, even within limits, on the MR requires a sign off by a LAME.
For example, if I write up a dodgy autopilot in an MR (which I have once) is anybody alleging that the aircraft cannot be flown legally in non commercial operations without a sign off from someone?
The heart of this problem is some industry folklore: "Any endorsement on an MR/approved equivalent automatically 'grounds' the aircraft."
It's frogsh*t. And if an FOI or AWI tells you that any endorsement on an MR/approved equivalent 'grounds' the aircraft, tell him/her s/he's speaking frogsh*t. (BTW, I've not met one that takes this simplistic, and wrong, view.)
Whether an endorsement 'grounds' an aircraft depends on:
1. the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be engaged
2. the flight rules (VFR v IFR) under which the aircraft is proposed to be operated
3. whether passengers are proposed to be carried
4. whether the subject of the endorsement is a passenger comfort item
5. the schedule of maintenance or system of maintenance in accordance with which the aircraft is required to be maintained
6. whether the aircraft is subject to a PUS/MEL etc.
7. whether flight with the damage or defect is otherwise approved (e.g. through an SFP)
8. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'equipment' or an 'instrument' 'fitted to the aircraft' that is not 'serviceable'
9. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'maintenance that is required to be carried out before the commencement of the flight, or that will be required to be carried out before the expiration of the flight, to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under' the regulations.
There is at least one 'black and white' issue, here: Any defect or damage must be endorsed on the MR/approved equivalent.
It's frogsh*t. And if an FOI or AWI tells you that any endorsement on an MR/approved equivalent 'grounds' the aircraft, tell him/her s/he's speaking frogsh*t. (BTW, I've not met one that takes this simplistic, and wrong, view.)
Whether an endorsement 'grounds' an aircraft depends on:
1. the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be engaged
2. the flight rules (VFR v IFR) under which the aircraft is proposed to be operated
3. whether passengers are proposed to be carried
4. whether the subject of the endorsement is a passenger comfort item
5. the schedule of maintenance or system of maintenance in accordance with which the aircraft is required to be maintained
6. whether the aircraft is subject to a PUS/MEL etc.
7. whether flight with the damage or defect is otherwise approved (e.g. through an SFP)
8. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'equipment' or an 'instrument' 'fitted to the aircraft' that is not 'serviceable'
9. whether the subject of the endorsement is 'maintenance that is required to be carried out before the commencement of the flight, or that will be required to be carried out before the expiration of the flight, to comply with any requirement or condition imposed under' the regulations.
There is at least one 'black and white' issue, here: Any defect or damage must be endorsed on the MR/approved equivalent.
Sunfish
Even under the standard MR/100hrly maintenance system there is nothing illegal about a privately owned aircraft running an engine trend log. The standard MR doesn’t provide for and really isn’t the right place for this information to be noted unless of course it’s outside limits. The important thing is the trend log isn’t being used to document items that are “Broken”. If though you have a dodgy auto pilot then it MUST be written up on the MR. Before further flight the auto pilot MUST be fixed or correctly labels as U/S and signed off accordingly by a suitably qualified LAME. That is the law and it is pretty black & white on this matter.
Even under the standard MR/100hrly maintenance system there is nothing illegal about a privately owned aircraft running an engine trend log. The standard MR doesn’t provide for and really isn’t the right place for this information to be noted unless of course it’s outside limits. The important thing is the trend log isn’t being used to document items that are “Broken”. If though you have a dodgy auto pilot then it MUST be written up on the MR. Before further flight the auto pilot MUST be fixed or correctly labels as U/S and signed off accordingly by a suitably qualified LAME. That is the law and it is pretty black & white on this matter.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
References for the Industry
From Thornbird, some references:
Aviation forum’s formula for recovery – aviationadvertiser.com.au
RAAA: TAAAF Policy Document
The current Senate Inquiry should also be remembered at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...2011-a-48.html
Aviation forum’s formula for recovery – aviationadvertiser.com.au
RAAA: TAAAF Policy Document
The current Senate Inquiry should also be remembered at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...2011-a-48.html
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 6th Jan 2013 at 22:07.
Shed Dog Tosser
How about this part just for starters:
How about this part just for starters:
CAR 50 Par 1 & 2
50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) the aircraft has suffered major damage;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.
50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) the aircraft has suffered major damage;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law is very clear about unofficial “Snag Logs”.
Titan, the legislation deals with defects, what about items that are not defects ?, how can they be relayed to the company, so they can be looked at before becoming a defect ? ( have you read the last four or so pages of this thread ?).
A snag is not in the legislation, because snags are not defects.
A snag is not in the legislation, because snags are not defects.
Snag book / aircraft notebook - whatever it was called was handy when used as a " personality" record of aircraft
Ie Pilot does Pre flight and notices stall warning breaker popped, he was the last pilot and had not noticed it on shutdown, no one handy to ask, resets breaker and no problem rest of the day.
Reports to CP on return. No action taken. Would be handy for next pilot if there was a note listing what had occurred. Ditto for a prop synch that was always spot on but now appeared to be a bit lazy.
Nothing's broken to enter on MR. Can't make note on MR as Casa definitely won't allow open items in this region so do you just forget about it
Why couldn't the AOC holder incorporate a note book into OM for comments such as above or have I been away from GA too long and lost the plot
Ie Pilot does Pre flight and notices stall warning breaker popped, he was the last pilot and had not noticed it on shutdown, no one handy to ask, resets breaker and no problem rest of the day.
Reports to CP on return. No action taken. Would be handy for next pilot if there was a note listing what had occurred. Ditto for a prop synch that was always spot on but now appeared to be a bit lazy.
Nothing's broken to enter on MR. Can't make note on MR as Casa definitely won't allow open items in this region so do you just forget about it
Why couldn't the AOC holder incorporate a note book into OM for comments such as above or have I been away from GA too long and lost the plot
No, SDT, it's you does not understand, because you continue to make the mistake of considering your amateur technical judgement to be the same as objective technical fact.
You make the decision as to what's a 'snag' and what's a 'defect'. Problem is, you're not legally qualified or legally authorised to make that call.
But, you're free to ignore anyone with whom you disagree. Good luck when CASA taps you on the shoulder.
You make the decision as to what's a 'snag' and what's a 'defect'. Problem is, you're not legally qualified or legally authorised to make that call.
But, you're free to ignore anyone with whom you disagree. Good luck when CASA taps you on the shoulder.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan, first of all I will admit to leaning towards S D T's argument here, but none the less you are putting up a good fight too.
With reference to your last post and also to your previous calls for a definition of 'snag', are you able to provide a definition of 'Defect' as it pertains to this discussion?
Referring to your quote of CAR Par(t) 1 & 2 "50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release" the beginning of that document has a definitions section.
I quote all the definitions from the last of the C's to the first of the E's....... no definition of 'defect'.
With that in mind, I doubt anyone will be able to define 'snag', unless of course you will accept the Macquarie Dictionary definition
, as casa does with the definition of 'imminent' as used in suspending Barrier's AOC.
from casa Enforcement Manual.
Relying on the definition of 'defect' in CAAP 51-1(2) could lead to the ridiculous i.e.. "bug squashed on leading edge of wing" (an insignificant imperfection but none the less than defined)
How the hell can us mere plebs 'do the right thing' when the legislation is so difficult to comprehend.
If the Act does not define 'defect', then no wonder there can be so much confusion as to what should be recorded.
With reference to your last post and also to your previous calls for a definition of 'snag', are you able to provide a definition of 'Defect' as it pertains to this discussion?
Referring to your quote of CAR Par(t) 1 & 2 "50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release" the beginning of that document has a definitions section.
I quote all the definitions from the last of the C's to the first of the E's....... no definition of 'defect'.
current flight plan means the flight plan, with any changes brought about by subsequent air traffic control clearances and air traffic control instructions.
daily inspection, in relation to an aircraft, means:
(a) if the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection referred to in Part 1 of the schedule; and
(b) if the aircraft is not maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection required to be carried out under:
(i) the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule; or
(ii) the aircraft’s approved system of maintenance;
before the start of flying operations on each day that the aircraft is to be flown.
danger area means an area declared under regulation 6 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 to be a danger area.
dangerous lights means any lights which may endanger the safety of aircraft, whether by reason of glare, or by causing confusion with or preventing clear visual reception of aeronautical lights or signals.
design standard means:
(a) a design standard in force under regulation 21 or 21A; or
(b) a design standard (however described) identified in:
(i) a type certificate; or
(ii) a type acceptance certificate; or
(iii) a supplemental type certificate: or
(iv) an Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under subregulation 21.303 (9) of CASR; or
(v) an Australian Technical Standard Order mentioned in paragraph 21.601 (2) (a) of CASR.
dual flying means flying in an aircraft fitted with fully functioning dual controls for the purpose of receiving flying training from a person who is authorised by these regulations to give the training.
elevation means the vertical distance of a point or a level on or affixed to the surface of the earth, measured from mean sea level.
daily inspection, in relation to an aircraft, means:
(a) if the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection referred to in Part 1 of the schedule; and
(b) if the aircraft is not maintained in accordance with the CASA maintenance schedule — the inspection required to be carried out under:
(i) the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule; or
(ii) the aircraft’s approved system of maintenance;
before the start of flying operations on each day that the aircraft is to be flown.
danger area means an area declared under regulation 6 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 to be a danger area.
dangerous lights means any lights which may endanger the safety of aircraft, whether by reason of glare, or by causing confusion with or preventing clear visual reception of aeronautical lights or signals.
design standard means:
(a) a design standard in force under regulation 21 or 21A; or
(b) a design standard (however described) identified in:
(i) a type certificate; or
(ii) a type acceptance certificate; or
(iii) a supplemental type certificate: or
(iv) an Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under subregulation 21.303 (9) of CASR; or
(v) an Australian Technical Standard Order mentioned in paragraph 21.601 (2) (a) of CASR.
dual flying means flying in an aircraft fitted with fully functioning dual controls for the purpose of receiving flying training from a person who is authorised by these regulations to give the training.
elevation means the vertical distance of a point or a level on or affixed to the surface of the earth, measured from mean sea level.
, as casa does with the definition of 'imminent' as used in suspending Barrier's AOC.
from casa Enforcement Manual.
What is an Imminent Risk?
“Imminent” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as meaning “likely to occur at any moment, impending: war is imminent”. The concept of imminence does not equate with the concept of immediacy. As Professor Sir John Smith QC has observed the term “imminent”, in the context of the criminal law defence of necessity, can include circumstances where a threat is “hanging over” a person even though there is no immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm:
“Imminent” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as meaning “likely to occur at any moment, impending: war is imminent”. The concept of imminence does not equate with the concept of immediacy. As Professor Sir John Smith QC has observed the term “imminent”, in the context of the criminal law defence of necessity, can include circumstances where a threat is “hanging over” a person even though there is no immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm:
CASA regards a DEFECT as any defect that is not a major defect and is something that is an imperfection that impairs the structure, composition, or function of an object or system of an aircraft or component.
If the Act does not define 'defect', then no wonder there can be so much confusion as to what should be recorded.
Last edited by Trent 972; 6th Jan 2013 at 23:59.