CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations

[Creampuff]

There is no confusion about what must be recorded. The problem is the fear caused by the folklore about the consequences of recording something.

[Trent 972]

Then creampuff, provide a link to the definition of 'defect' or are you my wife, because she's the only person I know, who knows everything.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make you right, give us the proof!

[blackhand]

Seems some are hearing but not understanding.
There is nothing to prevent entering a non airworthiness item on part two of the MR or equivelant, and it can stay open til transferred to Inspection work pack or to the newly issued MR if required.
These would include cosmetic defects.

Hitting animals, whether inflight or on the ground, requires an inspection, and release to service.

Intermittent or fluctuating indicators (gauges) require repair or deferal under MEL/PUS or an SPF.

[Creampuff]

As I'm single, I doubt I'm your wife, Trent.

You answered your own question in your own post, above!

When I see a bug squashed on a leading edge, I clean it off. But perhaps I have no common sense....

There are people who have suggested, in this thread, that a ding in a leading edge, caused by a collision with a 'roo, is appropriately the subject of a 'snag sheet' rather than endorsement in the MR/approved equivalent.

The people whom CASA busts aren't the folks who choose not to endorse an MR with: "bug squashed on leading edge of left wing", or who fly an aircraft with that endorsement 'open' on the MR.

[Trent 972]

For an industry that is ruled by reams of prescriptive rules, can it really be that the only definition of 'defect' is one in CAAP 51-1?

CAAPs provide guidance, interpretation and explanation on complying with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) or Civil Aviation Orders (CAO).
This CAAP provides advisory information to the aviation industry in support of a particular CAR or CAO. Ordinarily, the CAAP will provide additional ‘how to’ information not found in the source CAR, or elsewhere.
A CAAP is not intended to clarify the intent of a CAR, which must be clear from a reading of the regulation itself, nor may the CAAP contain mandatory requirements not contained in legislation.
Note: Read this advisory publication in conjunction with the appropriate
regulations/orders.

The whole reason this thread has taken this turn is that while creamy, titan, blackhand may be secure in their own knowledge of the subject, there is no where in the rule book that spells it out, despite the reams of rules.
Regulatory reform,.... bah humbug!

edit for blackhand.
I have no qualms with what you say, but it is a matter of degrees, i.e.. common-sense.
It is ok to hit a beetle but not a kangaroo. Therefore is it ok to hit a pigeon but not a pelican?
The only reason I can think of that 'defect' is not defined, is so that the b@stards can hang you out to dry on wishy washy rules, if they decide you're the one they're going to pick on today.
Good luck trying to run a business under those rules.

[Fission]

A CASA AWI not more that 2 months ago stated that an aircraft cannot fly with an open defect in Part 2. It must be cleared or transferred to Part 1.

I'm not talking about passenger convenience items - I'm talking radios and Nav lights.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

There are people who have suggested, in this thread, that a ding in a leading edge, caused by a collision with a 'roo, is appropriately the subject of a 'snag sheet' rather than endorsement in the MR/approved equivalent.

Now Creamy, that's just untrue.

Post 189

Really, what if a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?.

That example, which it would appear you entirely missed was about, to quote you, subjective opinion over objective assessment, I'm surprised you missed that,,,,Hmmmmm.

The people whom CASA busts aren't the folks who choose not to endorse an MR with: "bug squashed on leading edge of left wing", or who fly an aircraft with that endorsement 'open' on the MR.

I believe, generally with CASA, they don't bust anyone, they usually "administrative action" them into insolvency, no need for due process, no natural justice, no presenting evidence, no cross examination, I feel it is quite cowardly.

Hi blackhand,

There is nothing to prevent entering a non airworthiness item on part two of the MR or equivelant, and it can stay open til transferred to Inspection work pack or to the newly issued MR if required.
These would include cosmetic defects.

Do you mean non defect or damage ?.

How about you go and re-read pages 7 thru 9, where this was discussed, i.e.how it is being applied by many FOI / AWI's.

[blackhand]

Tosser of shed dogs,
There is no need to reread misinformation.
If you remain firm yet civil with your AWI/FOI you will find that they will research and advise you correctly. Remember, everything your AWI/FOI recommends is authorised by a higher authority than the local branch.

Then again maybe things are different in the Shed Dog world??

but it is a matter of degrees, i.e.. common-sense.
It is ok to hit a beetle but not a kangaroo. Therefore is it ok to hit a pigeon but not a pelican?

This seems to me to be a specious argument.
Have you in fact give the answer in you question?

[Obidiah]

In the absence of a CASA "defect" definition the dictionary definition will suffice, common dog really, it is defective in some manner. Can still be operational though.

Not sure I'm with the SDT's interp. on snag not being a defect, it is, otherwise it wouldn't be a point of interest to mention.

You can fly with an open MR entry, just depends on what that entry is, generally it needs to be major damage/defect or inop mandatory equipment that effects the airworthiness to effect a grounding.

Pilots are legally permitted to make a call on what constitutes an airworthiness critical defect or damage, rightly or wrongly. Just be conservative in the call as you are liable for what you write.

The torn seat upholstery example; A large tear is a defect but the seat is still perfectly operational and the aircraft can be considered safe to fly.

In the right company a Snags list for cosmetic items and things such as surface corrosion, slightly worn fittings etc,., the things pilots notice that engineers don't get the time to is a great system. In the wrong company it can get out of hand and detract from an effective MR system.

Maintenance release to cease to be in force

(ii) the aircraft has suffered major damage or has developed a
major defect, other than damage or a defect that is a
permissible unserviceability;

[Creampuff]

Fission, your example doesn't help unless you provide details of the classification of the operation in which the aircraft was proposed to be used, the rules (VFR v IFR) under which the aircraft was proposed to be operated, etc, etc down the list of nine items I stated above.

This is the problem writ large. A statement is made by a CASA AWI in the context of a specific aircraft in specific operational circumstances, and it's extrapolated to be the blanket rule for all aircraft in all operational circumstances. FFS.

I think you're being a little disingenuous, SDT. Your 'roo example was in the context of your 'snag sheet' argument. As a matter objective technical and regulatory fact, the damage must be recorded in the MR/approved equivalent, and it's not the pilot's call on whether the aircraft is airworthy. And you're not the only person posting on this thread, and you're not the only person who used that as an example too.

[blackhand]

Here is a defect to fight over, was written up in part two and left open.

"Park Brake Innop"
Not considered an airworthiness item.

[Fission]

Creampuff. How about the example of a Nav light failing on a day VFR helicopter operated under a class B schedule. Should that ground the helicopter ?

Is a marine radio a 'Passenger Convenience Item'?

If either fail, they have to be written up in part 2 and then transferred to part 1...

Nav lights "Not needed for Day VFR operations"
Marine radio "Not required for flight"

I'm loving this discussion - I hope CASA are reading it too.......

[Trent 972]

blackhand,

"Park Brake Innop"

Should have been grounded on the basis of - there is only 1 n, in 'Inop'.

[blackhand]

Should have been grounded on the basis of - there is only 1 n, in 'Inop'

Yes indeed

[Defenestrator]

Re the park brake. Three questions:

1. Was the aircraft operating RPT flights?
2. Does the checklist call for use of the park brake in any part?
3. What does the MEL say about an INOP park brake?

D

[Obidiah]

Park Brake Inop.

Not an airworthiness issue??

Perhaps, but if the failure has secondary issues that could cause the broken part to interfere with the brakes or other systems and compromise them, then it is an airworthiness issue.

You would need to understand how it has failed, if you can't source an engineer for advice then perhaps it is best to ground it.

[engmech22]

lame

A defect is a condition that deviates from the the first of type airworthiness certificate, in other words any alteration from when the aircraft left the manufacturers and was granted a C of A, UNLESS it is a concession, (MEL, one of concession, modification etc)

[engmech22]

lame

The "dust cap" is in fact a pressure seal and on most aircraft is a "no go" item

[Clare Prop]

I (company HAAMC) had lots of fun last year with CASA in this scenario...tail strobe u/s on a Day VFR aircraft in Aerial Work catagory.

The hangar weren't able to issue a new maintenance release after the periodic until it was fixed, according to their CASA audit. MY CASA guy went on and on to myself about MELs, PUS etc etc seemingly unable to comprehend that this aircraft was NOT in charter catagory and this item is NOT required for Day VFR aerial work operations. I won in the end when they eventually conceded that all I need is an "inop" sticker next to the switch but it would help and save a huge amount of time if CASA knew their own rules.

[blackhand]

Clare,
that is a tricky issue, on one hand an aircraft cannot be release to service after a Maintenance Release Inspection ( or equivelant) unless it complies with it's type data sheet, but then you were allowed to release to service in a category that allows a specific item to be US.
You may wish to check with your insurance agent( Hangar Liability) for their thoughts