CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
Sorry Fission, I may not have made my point clear.
I will try to make it clearer.
You left out details of some of the 9 variables. For example, in what classification of operation is the helicopter proposed to be engaged?
If, for example, the answer is charter and one of the exceptions does not apply, a blown nav light will 'ground' the helicopter.
If the answer is charter, and one the exceptions does not apply, a U/S marine radio fitted to the helicopter will 'ground' the helicopter.
The answer? Change the bulb and repair the marine radio.
Or....
If your point is that a U/S nav light or marine radio "should not" 'ground' a helicopter for day VFR charter, my point is that it does not "have to" to ground the helicopter. However, the operator first has to have the smarts of people like 404 Titan and Defenestrator. Unfortunately, many operators obviously don't have that benefit. Indeed, there are people who will obstinately refuse to heed the suggestions of people who have first-hand experience on the financial and regulatory benefits of using the available rules to advantage. Go figure ....
I will try to make it clearer.
You left out details of some of the 9 variables. For example, in what classification of operation is the helicopter proposed to be engaged?
If, for example, the answer is charter and one of the exceptions does not apply, a blown nav light will 'ground' the helicopter.
If the answer is charter, and one the exceptions does not apply, a U/S marine radio fitted to the helicopter will 'ground' the helicopter.
The answer? Change the bulb and repair the marine radio.
Or....
If your point is that a U/S nav light or marine radio "should not" 'ground' a helicopter for day VFR charter, my point is that it does not "have to" to ground the helicopter. However, the operator first has to have the smarts of people like 404 Titan and Defenestrator. Unfortunately, many operators obviously don't have that benefit. Indeed, there are people who will obstinately refuse to heed the suggestions of people who have first-hand experience on the financial and regulatory benefits of using the available rules to advantage. Go figure ....
Last edited by Creampuff; 7th Jan 2013 at 02:24.
[A]n aircraft cannot be release to service after a Maintenance Release Inspection ( or equivelant) unless it complies with it's type data sheet ...
PS: Clare:
You were correct. The CASA person with whom you were arguing was incorrect.
Last edited by Creampuff; 7th Jan 2013 at 02:28.
Are you saying the rules prevent you from issuing an M/R with this endorsement: "Right hand nav light bulb blown"? I'm interested in knowing what rule.
CAR 43(7) seems closest, but even it has exceptions.
CAR 43(7) seems closest, but even it has exceptions.
Last edited by Creampuff; 7th Jan 2013 at 20:57. Reason: Fat thumbs: changed "and" to "hand"
Moderator
This thread topic is:
CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
I'm happy for you to continue the existing debate on defects and Maintenance Releases, but in a separate, new thread.
CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
I'm happy for you to continue the existing debate on defects and Maintenance Releases, but in a separate, new thread.
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
The "dust cap" is in fact a pressure seal and on most aircraft is a "no go" item
Do you know anything about gas BBQ's?
I do, I've no eyebrows to prove it.
EDIT: Can we get back to the thread topic before I get canned for thread drift.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 7th Jan 2013 at 05:07.
Errrrmmmm, so remind me of what allegation has been made, by CASA, against Barrier. Isn't it that Barrier was not recording defects in the MR as well as flying aircraft with defects with which they should not have been flying? That seems to be the effect of the quote at post #3 in this thread.
I would have thought that a discussion about what constitutes a 'defect', when 'defects' must be recorded, and where, the circumstances in which an aircraft may be flown with 'open' defects, and the circumstances in which an MR ceases to be in force, recommences in force, and may be issued, are directly relevant to the Barrier suspension.
But it's your sandpit, mods ....
I would have thought that a discussion about what constitutes a 'defect', when 'defects' must be recorded, and where, the circumstances in which an aircraft may be flown with 'open' defects, and the circumstances in which an MR ceases to be in force, recommences in force, and may be issued, are directly relevant to the Barrier suspension.
But it's your sandpit, mods ....
Many people in aviation, including CASA FOIs, are prone to pet hates. If the FOI assigned to Barrier had a 'thing' about missing dustcaps to the extent that he had earned the nickname Captain Dustcap, surely it would have paid to humour him by seeing that all aircraft had these 50 cent items fitted at all times. If the locals had a habit of souveniring them for their pushbikes, why not carry a few spares?
My 'thing' has always been fuel drains and yes, pilots have failed checkrides before we even got airborne for neglecting these. I have come across pilots who did not even know where the fuel drains were! That would then lead me to go after whoever signed off their endorsement. That sometimes led to uncovering falsified or non-existent training records. So from such a seemingly minor issue a lot of dirt was uncovered. And hey, it is not as if any pilot above basic PPL does not know about why we do fuel drains, so neither the hapless checkee nor trainer had an excuse. By making an example of them they were in part being punished for a lack of adherance to requirements and in part for their laziness.
Not saying for one minute that Barrier was grounded for missing dust caps. It would be a brave CASA Team Leader to authorise such drastic action for something seemingly as trivial - knowing that any lawyer would howl 'harassment' if CASA did pull such a stunt. But easily-visible minor issues and indicators of sloppy practices would have to lead inspectors to sniff out more major ones.
Hopefully soon we will know what the issues were.
My 'thing' has always been fuel drains and yes, pilots have failed checkrides before we even got airborne for neglecting these. I have come across pilots who did not even know where the fuel drains were! That would then lead me to go after whoever signed off their endorsement. That sometimes led to uncovering falsified or non-existent training records. So from such a seemingly minor issue a lot of dirt was uncovered. And hey, it is not as if any pilot above basic PPL does not know about why we do fuel drains, so neither the hapless checkee nor trainer had an excuse. By making an example of them they were in part being punished for a lack of adherance to requirements and in part for their laziness.
Not saying for one minute that Barrier was grounded for missing dust caps. It would be a brave CASA Team Leader to authorise such drastic action for something seemingly as trivial - knowing that any lawyer would howl 'harassment' if CASA did pull such a stunt. But easily-visible minor issues and indicators of sloppy practices would have to lead inspectors to sniff out more major ones.
Hopefully soon we will know what the issues were.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 7th Jan 2013 at 09:31.
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
Errrrmmmm, so remind me of what allegation has been made, by CASA, against Barrier. Isn't it that Barrier was not recording defects in the MR as well as flying aircraft with defects with which they should not have been flying?
That, plus something about "snag sheets" which featured in the Gregadoo crash, but we are still to determine whether a flight log/minor incident report/ engineering request en route is a simple and effective way of determining the future airworthiness of an aircraft after it's landed.
Oh, and whatever those "defects" were whether or not they were a threat to the safe operation of that particular aerial vehicle.
My bet is still on the conspiracy theory.
tail wheel
I and many others have deliberately stayed away from directly talking about Barrier Aviation as it is still an ongoing process before the courts. As has been made perfectly clear to everyone on Prune, our anonymity isn’t guaranteed here and any direct reference to Barrier Aviation could expose not only us but the owners of Prune to defamation. This is clearly a situation which isn’t acceptable to anyone including Barrier Aviation which is entitled to a fair hearing before the Federal Court.
A general discussion about MR’s, Snag Logs etc is, in my opinion, the most appropriate way of talking about this subject without exposing any of us to any liability. If you disagree with my opinion I guess you have the final call as it is your train set. Maybe you could help us be separating the relevant posts into a new thread??
I and many others have deliberately stayed away from directly talking about Barrier Aviation as it is still an ongoing process before the courts. As has been made perfectly clear to everyone on Prune, our anonymity isn’t guaranteed here and any direct reference to Barrier Aviation could expose not only us but the owners of Prune to defamation. This is clearly a situation which isn’t acceptable to anyone including Barrier Aviation which is entitled to a fair hearing before the Federal Court.
A general discussion about MR’s, Snag Logs etc is, in my opinion, the most appropriate way of talking about this subject without exposing any of us to any liability. If you disagree with my opinion I guess you have the final call as it is your train set. Maybe you could help us be separating the relevant posts into a new thread??
404 Titan please, clarification required.
If my day VFR aircraft which is fitted witth an autopilot and the autopilot goes tits up:
The Pilot must write it up in the MR agreed.
Can the pilot then placard the autopilot as inop and proceed on his travels?
Coming back to the autopilot, Say I'm going away for a weekend, total flying time maybe Four Hours. No need for an autopilot at all, and in fact its the luck of the draw that I get an aircraft with one fitted. To make the situation more realistic, we know how to use it and the autopilot tests fine on the ground. In the air half an hour outbound, you engage it and discover it to be difficult or impossible to get it to even hold wings level - in fact so unreliable that you conclude its dangerous to try and use it at all.
Do you immediately return to base, park it and cancel your weekend, or do you mentally flag the autopilot as inoperable proceed on your weekend and write it up at your destination or before returning the aircraft?
.I ask this because on most hired aircraft there is almost always something that doesn't work, but that is not a primary flight instrument or control which would neither be relied on nor employed in day VFR flight - the classic example is Piper electric trim
Then there are aftermarket gadgets and junk of all sorts eg: stormscopes, EGT's, fancy fuel flow clock totalisators, etc. etc please don't tell me they have to be serviceable, if that is the case, then no hired aircraft can ever leave the ground.
If my day VFR aircraft which is fitted witth an autopilot and the autopilot goes tits up:
The Pilot must write it up in the MR agreed.
Can the pilot then placard the autopilot as inop and proceed on his travels?
Coming back to the autopilot, Say I'm going away for a weekend, total flying time maybe Four Hours. No need for an autopilot at all, and in fact its the luck of the draw that I get an aircraft with one fitted. To make the situation more realistic, we know how to use it and the autopilot tests fine on the ground. In the air half an hour outbound, you engage it and discover it to be difficult or impossible to get it to even hold wings level - in fact so unreliable that you conclude its dangerous to try and use it at all.
Do you immediately return to base, park it and cancel your weekend, or do you mentally flag the autopilot as inoperable proceed on your weekend and write it up at your destination or before returning the aircraft?
.I ask this because on most hired aircraft there is almost always something that doesn't work, but that is not a primary flight instrument or control which would neither be relied on nor employed in day VFR flight - the classic example is Piper electric trim
Then there are aftermarket gadgets and junk of all sorts eg: stormscopes, EGT's, fancy fuel flow clock totalisators, etc. etc please don't tell me they have to be serviceable, if that is the case, then no hired aircraft can ever leave the ground.
Can the pilot then placard the autopilot as inop and proceed on his travels?
If you are a PPL, not knowing the answer to this fundamental question is a sad indictment on your training.
[On most hired aircraft there is almost always something that doesn't work.
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th Jan 2013 at 00:07.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
Don't waste your bandwidth, what in abundantly is they either don't get it or their egos won't allow it. In the case of Creampuff, I'm not surprised.
Tail wagging the dog, sure that is consistent with my interpretation of the legislation and all the other administrative diarrhea that some numpty has proclaimed to be "policy" or taken the time to put on paper.
Don't waste your bandwidth, what in abundantly is they either don't get it or their egos won't allow it. In the case of Creampuff, I'm not surprised.
Tail wagging the dog, sure that is consistent with my interpretation of the legislation and all the other administrative diarrhea that some numpty has proclaimed to be "policy" or taken the time to put on paper.
Creampuff:
Creamy, what I proposed is common sense. However the reason I asked the question is that common sense and aviation don't seem to go hand in hand these days, as this thread sometimes seems to demonstrate, hence my genuine question..
And no, it isn't covered in training. The syllabus is all "competency based" these days and placarding inoperable systems is not a competency included.
Of course sh/e can, at least if it's a private, day VFR flight. (I'm not aware of any 'light' aircraft in which the A/P is required equipment for private, day VFR. There may be very rare exceptions. The POH will say.)
If you are a PPL, not knowing the answer to this fundamental question is a sad indictment on your training.
If you are a PPL, not knowing the answer to this fundamental question is a sad indictment on your training.
And no, it isn't covered in training. The syllabus is all "competency based" these days and placarding inoperable systems is not a competency included.
As I say, Sunfish, a sad indictment on your training, but it's probably typical of the general degradation in standards.
Hopefully the content of this thread will help others do what Clare did. SDT is obviously a lost cause.
Hopefully the content of this thread will help others do what Clare did. SDT is obviously a lost cause.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
Auto-pilot not required for private IFR unless the AFM/POH states differently. If it fails in flight either proceed VFR or assess your own ability to manage the flight without it. Write it up. An unserviceable auto-pilot will not ground the aircraft. Ref CAO 20.18. Common sense not required on this one. EDIT: Also ref CAAP 43-1(1) para 'Endorsements'.
As I've not operated an aircraft without an approved MEL for 15 years my knowledge on when the defect has to be repaired is sketchy. I'd suggest, if the aircraft is on a generic class B system of maintenance with a MR that's valid for 100 hours (schedule 5?) then the defect would be 'required' to be repaired at the expiration of the maintenance release (unless CAO 20.18 states differently....also reference 20.18 para 10.1). But as I said my knowledge on non MEL approved systems of maintenance isn't flash.
D
Auto-pilot not required for private IFR unless the AFM/POH states differently. If it fails in flight either proceed VFR or assess your own ability to manage the flight without it. Write it up. An unserviceable auto-pilot will not ground the aircraft. Ref CAO 20.18. Common sense not required on this one. EDIT: Also ref CAAP 43-1(1) para 'Endorsements'.
As I've not operated an aircraft without an approved MEL for 15 years my knowledge on when the defect has to be repaired is sketchy. I'd suggest, if the aircraft is on a generic class B system of maintenance with a MR that's valid for 100 hours (schedule 5?) then the defect would be 'required' to be repaired at the expiration of the maintenance release (unless CAO 20.18 states differently....also reference 20.18 para 10.1). But as I said my knowledge on non MEL approved systems of maintenance isn't flash.
D
Last edited by Defenestrator; 7th Jan 2013 at 22:30. Reason: Detail....
Creampuff:
Yes I know, that is why I asked the question. My entire aviation existence revolves around the question "what don't I know?"
As I say, Sunfish, a sad indictment on your training, but it's probably typical of the general degradation in standards.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
If the aircraft had a system of maintenance with an approved MEL you wouldn't have to 'know' it. The MEL, if written well, will provide all the guidance required. If written poorly it'll reference the CAR, CAO, CASR or AIP. Whilst most pilots carry the AIP with them I don't know any that have the rest of the documents 'handy' in the cockpit. Pointless having a MEL that provides operational considerations with reference to the Regs, ie. "proceed in accordance with CAO 20.18 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c", in the example you gave with the auto-pilot. A well written MEL will provide all guidance necessary in detail without the need to consult any of the aforementioned documents.
D
If the aircraft had a system of maintenance with an approved MEL you wouldn't have to 'know' it. The MEL, if written well, will provide all the guidance required. If written poorly it'll reference the CAR, CAO, CASR or AIP. Whilst most pilots carry the AIP with them I don't know any that have the rest of the documents 'handy' in the cockpit. Pointless having a MEL that provides operational considerations with reference to the Regs, ie. "proceed in accordance with CAO 20.18 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c", in the example you gave with the auto-pilot. A well written MEL will provide all guidance necessary in detail without the need to consult any of the aforementioned documents.
D
A very interesting thread, a few comments
1. We are talking about commercial operations here in relation to Barrier, the rules for defects differ from Private Category Operations.
2. Common sense does not prevail with CASA and yes if your in charter category and have something fitted it must work (20.18). eg; nav light for day operation, something broken that was optional anyway (marine radio).
The new generation of CASA AWI's have a Police mentality that is screwing GA.
3. As weighman pointed out Arcas Airways (Air Facilities) was hung over illegal defect logs, worth a read https://www.google.com/url?q=http://...yxpH-MItRoBovw
This was the result of a disgruntled ex pilot dobbing them into CASA, sounds very familiar to Barriers alleged wrong doings.
Shed Dog Tosser I question your wisdom of Option 3 in post 168.
4. MEL approvals in this country are extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive. Simplified approval process based on the FAA master (MMEL) would be a good start.
5. Most HAAMC's are also line pilots, usually Junior ones with limited knowledge in relation to aircraft maintenance. Like SMS in GA lip service is ops normal.
6. Max oil consumption for a Lycoming is .006 x BHP x 4/7.4 = Qt./Hr. however if you went suddenly from say 250 ml an hour to 1 litre and hour obviously this would warrant further investigation.
For a 300 hp Lycoming the max would be .972 US Qts/ Hr.
CASA is no longer a regulator but a dictator! GA is screwed...
1. We are talking about commercial operations here in relation to Barrier, the rules for defects differ from Private Category Operations.
2. Common sense does not prevail with CASA and yes if your in charter category and have something fitted it must work (20.18). eg; nav light for day operation, something broken that was optional anyway (marine radio).
The new generation of CASA AWI's have a Police mentality that is screwing GA.
3. As weighman pointed out Arcas Airways (Air Facilities) was hung over illegal defect logs, worth a read https://www.google.com/url?q=http://...yxpH-MItRoBovw
This was the result of a disgruntled ex pilot dobbing them into CASA, sounds very familiar to Barriers alleged wrong doings.
Shed Dog Tosser I question your wisdom of Option 3 in post 168.
4. MEL approvals in this country are extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive. Simplified approval process based on the FAA master (MMEL) would be a good start.
5. Most HAAMC's are also line pilots, usually Junior ones with limited knowledge in relation to aircraft maintenance. Like SMS in GA lip service is ops normal.
6. Max oil consumption for a Lycoming is .006 x BHP x 4/7.4 = Qt./Hr. however if you went suddenly from say 250 ml an hour to 1 litre and hour obviously this would warrant further investigation.
For a 300 hp Lycoming the max would be .972 US Qts/ Hr.
CASA is no longer a regulator but a dictator! GA is screwed...