CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
For those of you that keep using the U/S Nav light bulb as an example, have you tested your assumption that nav lights have absolutely no potential safety function or benefit during day VFR ops? There is a thread on the issue...
Cream puff, I do not debate the potential safety function or benefit. Why however if you had 3 point strobes and dual landing lights should common sense not prevail?
Nav lights could be an option or removed by EO.
Nav lights could be an option or removed by EO.
Not all aircraft have 3 point strobes and dual landing lights. If we build an exception in 20.18 for nav lights on aircraft with 3 point strobes and dual landing lights, someone will put up their hand and say: "But our aircraft has 2 point strobes, 2 rotating beacons and a pulsing landing light."
For operators of aircraft with 3 point strobes and dual landing lights, the common sense approach (from my perspective) is to get a MEL/PUS approved.
My observation is that operators who understand the continuing airworthiness and maintenance rules generally understand the cost/benefit of getting a MEL/PUS approved, and have little difficulty in gaining approval.
For operators of aircraft with 3 point strobes and dual landing lights, the common sense approach (from my perspective) is to get a MEL/PUS approved.
My observation is that operators who understand the continuing airworthiness and maintenance rules generally understand the cost/benefit of getting a MEL/PUS approved, and have little difficulty in gaining approval.
Sunfish's question was about a private operation.
The same principles apply to aerial work (a commercial operation) - see Clare's post.
The same principles may apply to charter and RPT. Those who have been paying attention will see how.
Until you're a mod, Trent, you'll just have to put up with me. Or you could go away.
PS: Gosh Trent, where did your post go?
The same principles apply to aerial work (a commercial operation) - see Clare's post.
The same principles may apply to charter and RPT. Those who have been paying attention will see how.
Until you're a mod, Trent, you'll just have to put up with me. Or you could go away.
PS: Gosh Trent, where did your post go?
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th Jan 2013 at 00:14. Reason: To deal with Trent deleting his post
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same principles apply to aerial work (a commercial operation) - see Clare's post.
The certifying LAME in Clare's case had better make sure he can justify releasing the aircraft with a known defect.
And did those AWI's quote a regulation? I'm guessing not, but would love to stand corrected.
Trent: PPLs, CPLs, ATPLs, commercial operators (including Barrier - happy now?), FOIs, AWIs and butch kalithumpions should all be starting in the same place: CAO 20.18 and CARs 43, 47, 50 and 133. Perhaps if PPLs were (again) required to have a proper understanding these rules, some of the others wouldn't labour under some of the misconceptions manifest on this thread ....
Anyway, a useful and challenging discussion from my perspective.
Trent: PPLs, CPLs, ATPLs, commercial operators (including Barrier - happy now?), FOIs, AWIs and butch kalithumpions should all be starting in the same place: CAO 20.18 and CARs 43, 47, 50 and 133. Perhaps if PPLs were (again) required to have a proper understanding these rules, some of the others wouldn't labour under some of the misconceptions manifest on this thread ....
Anyway, a useful and challenging discussion from my perspective.
CASR "42" is a little imprecise. CASR 42 covers many, many pages of (new, 'simplified') rules. To which specific provision are your tame AWIs referring?
PS: Your tame AWIs probably need to read CASR 42.010. Twice.
PS: Your tame AWIs probably need to read CASR 42.010. Twice.
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th Jan 2013 at 01:29.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To which specific provision are your tame AWIs referring?
And they advise me in a direction, but I have to work out exactly where the answer is.
At this time busy with HAAMC stuff, but will research further.
Cheers
Editted: Ah I see what you mean Creampuff, RPT.
Last edited by blackhand; 8th Jan 2013 at 02:12. Reason: CASR 42 010, heads up from creampuff
blackhand
I hope this helps you out with your AWI's.
I hope this helps you out with your AWI's.
CASR Part42
SUBPART 42.A: PRELIMINARY
GM 42.010 - Applicability of Part
This regulation states that CASR Part 42 applies to a registered aircraft and any aeronautical product for a registered aircraft. A registered aircraft, according to the CASR Dictionary, means an aircraft registered under CASR Part 47.
However, transitional regulation 202.180 further affects the applicability of CASR Part 42. From 27 June 2011 until the end of 26 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR and the registered operator of the aircraft has been approved as continuing airworthiness management organisation for the type and model of aircraft;
• aeronautical products for such aircraft;
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such an aircraft.
On and after 27 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR; and
• aeronautical products for such aircraft; and
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such aircraft.
CAR 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) (c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.
SUBPART 42.A: PRELIMINARY
GM 42.010 - Applicability of Part
This regulation states that CASR Part 42 applies to a registered aircraft and any aeronautical product for a registered aircraft. A registered aircraft, according to the CASR Dictionary, means an aircraft registered under CASR Part 47.
However, transitional regulation 202.180 further affects the applicability of CASR Part 42. From 27 June 2011 until the end of 26 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR and the registered operator of the aircraft has been approved as continuing airworthiness management organisation for the type and model of aircraft;
• aeronautical products for such aircraft;
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such an aircraft.
On and after 27 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR; and
• aeronautical products for such aircraft; and
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such aircraft.
CAR 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) (c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.
Moderator
404 Titan
It is patently obvious that many who have commented in this thread debate, who I assume are commercial pilots, have absolutely no idea what a defect is, what purpose a Maintenance Release serves, or their obligations as the pilot of an aircraft.
"Snag sheets" and "defect diaries" my assss! In all fairness, some of the CASA FOIs I've had the misfortune to meet are also no wiser on the definition of a defect or correct use of the Maintenance Release.
It is for that reason I believe a thread decicated solely to debate of defects, correct use of the Maintenance Release, MELs, and when an aircraft can and can't be flown, would be totally appropriate.
When I get time I will transfer this debate to a dedicated thread, leaving the Barrier Aviation thread for matters relating to that issue only.
It is patently obvious that many who have commented in this thread debate, who I assume are commercial pilots, have absolutely no idea what a defect is, what purpose a Maintenance Release serves, or their obligations as the pilot of an aircraft.
"Snag sheets" and "defect diaries" my assss! In all fairness, some of the CASA FOIs I've had the misfortune to meet are also no wiser on the definition of a defect or correct use of the Maintenance Release.
It is for that reason I believe a thread decicated solely to debate of defects, correct use of the Maintenance Release, MELs, and when an aircraft can and can't be flown, would be totally appropriate.
When I get time I will transfer this debate to a dedicated thread, leaving the Barrier Aviation thread for matters relating to that issue only.
Hear! Hear!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC FNQ 8 January, 2013 2:57PM AEST
Maintenance issues 'across the board' for grounded airline.
So WTF were those casa blowhards doing during the Barrier audit?
Are they just making it up as they go along?
Maintenance issues 'across the board' for grounded airline.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority [CASA] say they are investigating the maintenance of aircraft at all four bases grounded airline Barrier Aviation fly from.
The Queensland charter service ran around 30 flights a day out of Cairns, Darwin, Gove and Horn Island before being taken out of the sky just before Christmas.
Last month Barrier Aviation's lawyer David Perkins said the company's Horn Island operation was "the major concern of CASA".
But CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson says all of Barrier Aviation's bases will be looked at.
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority's concerns about Barrier's maintenance practices affect all the operations," he says.
"That's Cairns, Horn Island, Gove and Darwin. It goes right across the board."
Barrier Aviation are currently suspended from flying until February 15.
A team of maintenace experts, airworthiness inspectors and safety systems specialists are in Cairns investigating the airline Mr Gibson says.
"They've got a lot of material to look at," he says.
"They're proceeding with that as quickly as possible. How long that will take is hard to say at this stage.
"We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that. If we can finalise things before that it would be good."
The Queensland charter service ran around 30 flights a day out of Cairns, Darwin, Gove and Horn Island before being taken out of the sky just before Christmas.
Last month Barrier Aviation's lawyer David Perkins said the company's Horn Island operation was "the major concern of CASA".
But CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson says all of Barrier Aviation's bases will be looked at.
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority's concerns about Barrier's maintenance practices affect all the operations," he says.
"That's Cairns, Horn Island, Gove and Darwin. It goes right across the board."
Barrier Aviation are currently suspended from flying until February 15.
A team of maintenace experts, airworthiness inspectors and safety systems specialists are in Cairns investigating the airline Mr Gibson says.
"They've got a lot of material to look at," he says.
"They're proceeding with that as quickly as possible. How long that will take is hard to say at this stage.
"We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that. If we can finalise things before that it would be good."
Are they just making it up as they go along?
Last edited by Trent 972; 8th Jan 2013 at 06:52. Reason: change d!ckbrains to blowhards
CASA audits vary widely in intensity and scope. At the entry meeting they love to use the word 'snapshot' as it covers them if they miss things.
Also, the operator is notified well in advance of the scope of the audit, so has ample time to get their housekeeping done.
One of the major shortcomings of the audit process as it has been practised in the past is that it looks closely at paperwork to the detriment of old fashioned surveillance of actual work being done. And with an audit pre-announced, any work that is observed is of course going to be done properly on the day.
It is quite conceivable that what they saw when they issued a six month extension to the AOC was acceptable in the short term, pending further investigation. Otherwise they would have got the standard three year renewal.
Also, the operator is notified well in advance of the scope of the audit, so has ample time to get their housekeeping done.
One of the major shortcomings of the audit process as it has been practised in the past is that it looks closely at paperwork to the detriment of old fashioned surveillance of actual work being done. And with an audit pre-announced, any work that is observed is of course going to be done properly on the day.
It is quite conceivable that what they saw when they issued a six month extension to the AOC was acceptable in the short term, pending further investigation. Otherwise they would have got the standard three year renewal.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 8th Jan 2013 at 07:29.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach, That's the point. If the paperwork was ok in the audit, what will be different now, or is this more about casa's Gibsons statement,
Got to stretch it out to the 15th Feb, just to drive home the financial rogering of Barrier.
With ref to the Darwin and Gove bases, from what I can find out, Barrier leased/hired aircraft from the Darwin based owner who is himself a LAME and did the maintenance work on his own aircraft.
If so how would any further investigation in those bases differ from what would have been discovered in the audit process?
We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that.
With ref to the Darwin and Gove bases, from what I can find out, Barrier leased/hired aircraft from the Darwin based owner who is himself a LAME and did the maintenance work on his own aircraft.
If so how would any further investigation in those bases differ from what would have been discovered in the audit process?
Last edited by Trent 972; 8th Jan 2013 at 07:52. Reason: add 'If so' to final sentence
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
It is certainly worth a read:
A major issue was that a maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas.
Tootle pip!!
[A] maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that.
"CASA's administrative action is a form of economic regulation - or financial strangulation. Ground the b@stards without trial long enough to break them financially!"
CASA made the application to the Court because investigations into Barrier Aviation will not be completed by the end of the initial five working day suspension period.
Got to stretch it out to the 15th Feb, just to drive home the financial rogering of Barrier.
Last edited by Two_dogs; 8th Jan 2013 at 10:03. Reason: Kant spel proper
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Observing the attitude and aptitude up the hill from cairns might make some of you guys change your minds about casa's reason for investigating the engineering side of the operation.