CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
I guess it may well depend on your system of maintenance SDT, but I know in the company I work for, you can write these 'snags' up, and then sign the maintenance release off as "No Major Defect - Aircraft Safe For Flight", then it get's transferred to the DDL.
However, there are things in that list that I wouldn't consider just 'snags'. Such as an engine burning excessive amounts of oil? Seriously?
I have no hesitation in grounding an aircraft that needs to be grounded. I do want to come home at the end of each shift.
morno
However, there are things in that list that I wouldn't consider just 'snags'. Such as an engine burning excessive amounts of oil? Seriously?
I have no hesitation in grounding an aircraft that needs to be grounded. I do want to come home at the end of each shift.
morno
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, there are things in that list that I wouldn't consider just 'snags'. Such as an engine burning excessive amounts of oil? Seriously?
If from your experience the aircraft in your fleet normally burns less than 1 qts per hour and the aircraft or engine manual specifies "oil burns of 2 qts per hours or more, or excessive amounts of oil on the airframe, the source must be identified and repaired" ( or words to that effect ).
So, 1.5 qts consumption is not out of tolerance and aircraft generally don't "just get better".
I doubt there are too many pilots that would hesitate grounding an aircraft for a genuine defect, we all want to go home at the end of the flight.
Morno, you operate under a very expensive and specifically designed maintenance system for high performance turbines, in aircraft usually less than 10 years old..............apples with apples.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 04:03.
Yeah, guess it depends on what the manual says with regards to oil useage. I was just going off my memory of operating a piston where in excess of 1 quart was considered too much and the engine pulled.
You are correct, I do operate aircraft that are as you describe. However, regardless of whether it's a 2 year old high performance turbine or if it's a 40 year old piston single, it's still an aircraft. If it's broke, then it's written on the M/R. Not these little black books.
morno
You are correct, I do operate aircraft that are as you describe. However, regardless of whether it's a 2 year old high performance turbine or if it's a 40 year old piston single, it's still an aircraft. If it's broke, then it's written on the M/R. Not these little black books.
morno
The problem with unofficial methods of reporting 'snags' or so-called non-airworthiness items is that non-engineering people ( like a 250 hour CPL or beancounter boss that may have been a farmer in a former life) are taking it upon themselves to make a judgement call for which they are neither legally nor professionally qualified to make.
Hence, when CASA stumble upon little black books or notepads or even emails detailing such stuff they have every right and an obligation under their charter to take action.
Simple really. If the defect is known, it is written up in the operator's approved maintenance system, then either deferred under the MEL, annotated by a qualified LAME as 'non-airworthiness' or fixed.
A pilot may be able to defer certain items via the MEL - all depends on what has been approved for that operator.
If it is not a defect, but impending (e.g. A brake almost down to the wear indicator) the prudent pilot will make a phone call to alert the operator that in a day or two the defect WILL be logged unless rectified. Putting anything else in writing is potentially professional suicide.
Why such a policy would send an operator broke if he is not already headed that way - someone please explain?
Hence, when CASA stumble upon little black books or notepads or even emails detailing such stuff they have every right and an obligation under their charter to take action.
Simple really. If the defect is known, it is written up in the operator's approved maintenance system, then either deferred under the MEL, annotated by a qualified LAME as 'non-airworthiness' or fixed.
A pilot may be able to defer certain items via the MEL - all depends on what has been approved for that operator.
If it is not a defect, but impending (e.g. A brake almost down to the wear indicator) the prudent pilot will make a phone call to alert the operator that in a day or two the defect WILL be logged unless rectified. Putting anything else in writing is potentially professional suicide.
Why such a policy would send an operator broke if he is not already headed that way - someone please explain?
I think you are a very courageous person, SDT.
But let’s assume you are correct and none of the things on your list above falls within the meaning of ‘defect’ in the regulations. What, then, is the risk of entering them on the MR? Where is the prohibition on operating an aircraft whose MR has a bunch of endorsements that are not defects?
To take one of your own examples to make my point, if you endorsed an MR with “Aircraft hard to land”, what rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?
But let’s assume you are correct and none of the things on your list above falls within the meaning of ‘defect’ in the regulations. What, then, is the risk of entering them on the MR? Where is the prohibition on operating an aircraft whose MR has a bunch of endorsements that are not defects?
To take one of your own examples to make my point, if you endorsed an MR with “Aircraft hard to land”, what rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach,
If these items are not unservicable I.e. not a defect, they would otherwise be unknown and not likely to be corrected due to no one knowing about it, it may soon enough, if left, become an unservicability.
I.e. oil consumption over 2 qts per hour or a hole in the aileron.
If a pilot is on a charter, two hours out and two hours back, when on the ground out at the destination, I.e. away from home base, and they make an entry into the defect section of the MR , of something that is essentially not a defect, say for example, "oil consumption calculated to be 1.5 on the lh engine ", who is going to close the open entry ?, if you say the pilot, perhaps you could show me where and how the pilot is permitted to close the entry for a class b aircraft.
So and engineer would be dispatched in another aircraft at huge expense, to close the entry, Profit for the day minus $3000.
Creampuff,
Thanks, although I am uncomfortable with the title of "hero",
.
The "hard to land" example was an example of the sort of thing a retarded pilot would write, something a chief pilot / engineer would querry and try to determine if there is infact a defect on the aircraft or a pilot "issue".
All endorsement on a MR must be closed / signed off.
I am an airline pilot, so I am not incriminating myself, just highlighting the stupidity of the tail wagging the dog.
If these items are not unservicable I.e. not a defect, they would otherwise be unknown and not likely to be corrected due to no one knowing about it, it may soon enough, if left, become an unservicability.
I.e. oil consumption over 2 qts per hour or a hole in the aileron.
If a pilot is on a charter, two hours out and two hours back, when on the ground out at the destination, I.e. away from home base, and they make an entry into the defect section of the MR , of something that is essentially not a defect, say for example, "oil consumption calculated to be 1.5 on the lh engine ", who is going to close the open entry ?, if you say the pilot, perhaps you could show me where and how the pilot is permitted to close the entry for a class b aircraft.
So and engineer would be dispatched in another aircraft at huge expense, to close the entry, Profit for the day minus $3000.
Creampuff,
Thanks, although I am uncomfortable with the title of "hero",
.The "hard to land" example was an example of the sort of thing a retarded pilot would write, something a chief pilot / engineer would querry and try to determine if there is infact a defect on the aircraft or a pilot "issue".
All endorsement on a MR must be closed / signed off.
I am an airline pilot, so I am not incriminating myself, just highlighting the stupidity of the tail wagging the dog.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 06:58.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy,
Perhaps you should talk to CAsA about that
Enter the FOI or AWIs personal opinion or interpretation, "in my opinion 1.5 qts per hour is unservicable or you have open entry's on the MR incontravention to that paragraph in Cao 20.18, here have some administrative action ".
Perhaps you should talk to CAsA about that
Enter the FOI or AWIs personal opinion or interpretation, "in my opinion 1.5 qts per hour is unservicable or you have open entry's on the MR incontravention to that paragraph in Cao 20.18, here have some administrative action ".
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 06:50.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest...what about aircraft, let's say a shrike, with a range limited not by fuel but by oil? Would oil consumption so high that it limits range be a maintenance issue that needs to be addressed?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed Dog,
Incorrect, from the mouths of three CASA inspectors, "No you can have an open entry as long as it does not fit into an unservicability category'
Beware though as a slight miss statement and the aircraft is grounded or you end up on the next ramp check with a situation.
Incorrect, from the mouths of three CASA inspectors, "No you can have an open entry as long as it does not fit into an unservicability category'
Beware though as a slight miss statement and the aircraft is grounded or you end up on the next ramp check with a situation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max, and to the fourth CAsA inspector who would view it as an unforgivable crime, one befitting summary execution.
Believe me, its a lucky dip, depends entirely on their opinion / interpretation, at the time, crotchety best describes the experience.
Believe me, its a lucky dip, depends entirely on their opinion / interpretation, at the time, crotchety best describes the experience.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 07:46.
Justinga,
From what I hear you have it in a nutshell. which gets me thinking about everyones favorite sunbus driver, once CAsA has finished with barrier what's to say they won't go after him, after all he just admitted to flying back to base with a known defect and then NOT writing it up there either!
As we all know it is our legal obligation to write up all defects
From what I hear you have it in a nutshell. which gets me thinking about everyones favorite sunbus driver, once CAsA has finished with barrier what's to say they won't go after him, after all he just admitted to flying back to base with a known defect and then NOT writing it up there either!
As we all know it is our legal obligation to write up all defects
CAR 48 might be a good place to start.
Perhaps CAR 133 and CAO 20.18 would be a better place to start.
CAR 133 says, in relevant part:
(1) Subject to regulation 317 and regulation 21.197 of CASR, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:
…
(c) the flight is not in contravention of any condition that:
(i) is set out or referred to in the maintenance release or in any other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of regulation 49, or subregulation 43 (10); or
(ii) is applicable to the maintenance release by virtue of a direction given under regulation 44;
(d) any 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 these regulations with respect to the aircraft has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed;
…
…
(c) the flight is not in contravention of any condition that:
(i) is set out or referred to in the maintenance release or in any other document approved for use as an alternative to the maintenance release for the purposes of regulation 49, or subregulation 43 (10); or
(ii) is applicable to the maintenance release by virtue of a direction given under regulation 44;
(d) any 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 these regulations with respect to the aircraft has been certified, in accordance with regulation 42ZE or 42ZN, to have been completed;
…
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
What “defect” or “damage” has the aircraft suffered? What “maintenance” is “required to be carried out”? What “instrument” or “equipment” “fitted to the aircraft” is not “serviceable”?
Last edited by Creampuff; 5th Jan 2013 at 08:08.
Im loving all the thoughts and opinions. No wonder CASA are taking weeks to decipher the facts and lets face it, there must be a few "issues" on the table. Must be a few drivers and spanner turners abit nervous of the M/Rs they have signed in the past. The owners will fight there way out with lawyers but where does it leave the busted arse pilot/engineer.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creeamy,
In all due respect, what you "know" and what the industry is forced at gun point to comply with is very different.
For example, CAR 206 ring any bells ?.
"Hard to land", in the subjective mind of some foi or awi on a mission, this would be an indication of a huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue, because it could be the airframe failing or the flux capacitor not generating 1.21 giga watts........
The only certainty is that its not black and white, since the introduction of the beauracratic can't do strict liability culture, its all about making examples of pilots / companies and covering CAsAs prosteria.
In all due respect, what you "know" and what the industry is forced at gun point to comply with is very different.
For example, CAR 206 ring any bells ?.
"Hard to land", in the subjective mind of some foi or awi on a mission, this would be an indication of a huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue, because it could be the airframe failing or the flux capacitor not generating 1.21 giga watts........
The only certainty is that its not black and white, since the introduction of the beauracratic can't do strict liability culture, its all about making examples of pilots / companies and covering CAsAs prosteria.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 08:30.
Creamy,
It seems you done more research than I (2 min google search lol)
kudos to you. In saying that though I will still throw my hat in with the shed dog.
When no one is policing the police it matters not what the rules say but what the police say!
It seems you done more research than I (2 min google search lol)
kudos to you. In saying that though I will still throw my hat in with the shed dog. When no one is policing the police it matters not what the rules say but what the police say!
I know very, very little SDT. But the little I know includes this: Blank MR = shonky.
And whether there is an underlying “huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue” is a question of objective fact rather than subjective opinion, which question is not for a mere pilot to answer.
If there’s no problem, a LAME should have no problem in clearing the endorsement.
When you choose not to record something that could turn out to be “an imminent safety issue”, you make a very courageous decision. The people with professional qualifications and lawful authority to make the technical call are thankful to you for taking that risk instead of them.
The innocent pax you carry are not as thankful.
"Hard to land", in the subjective mind of some foi or awi on a mission, this would be an indication of a huge issue with the aircraft that will be an imminent safety issue, because it could be the airframe failing or the flux capacitor not generating 1.21 giga watts........
If there’s no problem, a LAME should have no problem in clearing the endorsement.
When you choose not to record something that could turn out to be “an imminent safety issue”, you make a very courageous decision. The people with professional qualifications and lawful authority to make the technical call are thankful to you for taking that risk instead of them.
The innocent pax you carry are not as thankful.
Last edited by Creampuff; 5th Jan 2013 at 09:47.
Lets just use the "hard landing" as an example, whats say you did a hard landing and didnt write it up as the owner/engineer/chief pilot told you it was ok and last week they had told the bloke you replaced the same thing. Then you leave the company or never talk to the next pilot as the aircraft gets moved betwen bases and then it does another "hard landing"........You get the picture, its GA, $$$ are tight, aircraft are old