CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also claim to know very little.
Sorry Creamy, I did not answer your question.
I'll give you a fairer example, C172, day VFR Charter, in addition to all the standard equipment fitted from the factory, the owner spends some money on the latest and great shadin fuel computer, which is installed in an unfilled hole in the instrument panel ( everything is serviceable ).
The Shading does not power up and is deemed U/S.
The aircraft does not have a MEL, which is pretty common for GA aircraft.
The pilot writes it on the MR.
Pilot flies to destination, the CAsA ramp said Pilot, and quotes:
So, it would be suggested that, you have no right to fly this aircraft, as it has an open item on the MR, and you're a very naughty boy/girl. { insert pineapple here }
So sure, MEL all aircraft, which in itself is a painful and expensive process.
But, again, snags are not defects, how about we call it the "stitch in time saves nine" book.
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 ?.
I may sound really down on CAsA, I'm actually not, there are some awesome Team Leaders, FOI's and AWI's in CAsA, more often than not the ones trying to re-invert the wheel are the other type of Team Leader, FOI or AWI.
Justinga, that is also subjective, what you might call a hard landing might be normal for me
.
Sorry Creamy, I did not answer your question.
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?
The Shading does not power up and is deemed U/S.
The aircraft does not have a MEL, which is pretty common for GA aircraft.
The pilot writes it on the MR.
Pilot flies to destination, the CAsA ramp said Pilot, and quotes:
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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
So sure, MEL all aircraft, which in itself is a painful and expensive process.
But, again, snags are not defects, how about we call it the "stitch in time saves nine" book.
And whether there is an underlying “huge issue with the aircraft that will be imminent safety issue” is a question of objective fact rather than subjective opinion, which question is not for a mere pilot to answer.
I may sound really down on CAsA, I'm actually not, there are some awesome Team Leaders, FOI's and AWI's in CAsA, more often than not the ones trying to re-invert the wheel are the other type of Team Leader, FOI or AWI.
Justinga, that is also subjective, what you might call a hard landing might be normal for me
.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 10:01.
No, that won’t do at all, SDT. I asked a question based on your example. Answer that question based on that example please.
In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades. (And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)
For the regulator, pristine MRs/approved equivalents are shooting fish in a barrel. The gun usually comes out when the whistleblower gives the regulator little choice.
You’re all free to choose to break the law, folks. But don’t be surprised and call foul when the regulator’s sights fall on you or your employer. And if you are labouring under the misconception that the regulator's your biggest problem, have an accident and kill or injure someone ....
In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades. (And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)
For the regulator, pristine MRs/approved equivalents are shooting fish in a barrel. The gun usually comes out when the whistleblower gives the regulator little choice.
You’re all free to choose to break the law, folks. But don’t be surprised and call foul when the regulator’s sights fall on you or your employer. And if you are labouring under the misconception that the regulator's your biggest problem, have an accident and kill or injure someone ....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 
The UNCASA have been known to offer immunity for individual transgressions in return for signed statements against operators. You'd better get that in writing though!
Oh ... by the way Sunbus driver, been 24 hours, still waiting for your side of the story. You had a pretty big mouth when you were talking to CASA, time to put up or FCUK OFF altogether, you're pretty unemployable anyway.
Last edited by Two_dogs; 5th Jan 2013 at 10:48.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
In the "the aircraft is hard to land" statement:
1) is it a defect, perhaps there is an underlying problem with the aircraft ( remember this was given as an example of what a retarded pilot could / would write ),
2) has it been written up as a defect, well it is an open item on the MR, so as per the example given above, unless "the aircraft is hard to land" is listed on the MEL as a category A, B or C deferable item, the aircraft shall not be flown.
Enter the subjective determination FOI or AWI ( which I believe you are claiming can not happen ), "Well if its different to the other C172s, there must be a reason, ( cue the selection of the ass covering switch to the detent position ) it is my opinion that this aircraft is an imminent safety risk,,,,,,,,,,, I don't know why,,,,,,,, it just is".
No it hasn't
Refer post 155
By my recollection this "interpretation" changed in the early 2000's.
This issue is not the absences of a Shadin, it is the Pilots not doing their jobs properly: flight planning, correctly leaning in the climb and cruise, monitoring the inflight EGT / CHT and checking actual FOB at departure point, checking mid flight fuel burns etc etc.
Having a Shadin onboard might have helped them, so would have the correct amount of fuel or correct fuel management technique.
The aircraft had been certified worthy of a VH- registration out of the factory without said Shadin.
Incidently, you didn't answer my question :
In the "the aircraft is hard to land" statement:
1) is it a defect, perhaps there is an underlying problem with the aircraft ( remember this was given as an example of what a retarded pilot could / would write ),
2) has it been written up as a defect, well it is an open item on the MR, so as per the example given above, unless "the aircraft is hard to land" is listed on the MEL as a category A, B or C deferable item, the aircraft shall not be flown.
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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(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 (Does not apply)
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades.
Refer post 155
But CAsA brought this on themselves, in days of old:
* a class B maintained aircraft was said the be "airworthy" when:
- the aircraft had a valid maintenance release, and,
- the basic operational requirements for flight (IFR / VFR) were met and serviceable ( as per CAO 20.18 ), and,
- the mandatory instruments as detailed within the flight manual were servicable, and,
- the PIC was satisfied with the state of all of the above and the calculated sphincter factor based on any other issues ( higher than normal oil consumption etc etc ).
* a class B maintained aircraft was said the be "airworthy" when:
- the aircraft had a valid maintenance release, and,
- the basic operational requirements for flight (IFR / VFR) were met and serviceable ( as per CAO 20.18 ), and,
- the mandatory instruments as detailed within the flight manual were servicable, and,
- the PIC was satisfied with the state of all of the above and the calculated sphincter factor based on any other issues ( higher than normal oil consumption etc etc ).
(And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)
Having a Shadin onboard might have helped them, so would have the correct amount of fuel or correct fuel management technique.
The aircraft had been certified worthy of a VH- registration out of the factory without said Shadin.
Incidently, you didn't answer my question
:
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 ?.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 11:17.
What seems to me to be totally absent from GA and CASA these days are the twin concepts of "common sense" and the "reasonable" man.
On a number of occasions I've found something that I had thought to be unserviceable and qureid the engineers to be told: "It always does that" and what the fix was, and the fix worked and there was no unserviceablity.
At other times I wouldn't accept "it always does that" when complaining about a rough idle and a linkage was immediately adjusted and ultimately replaced. That didn't get written up in the MR either.
On another occasion I rendered an aircraft unserviceable without knowing it - so nothing in the maintenace release until a few days later.
While I am not and never will be a commercial pilot or operator, what does one do when you are in the middle of nowhere and you hit an emu on landing or discover the proverbial burned out landing light?
You are flying day VFR, is your aircraft unserviceable according to CASA?
Does the small dent in the leading edge render your aircraft unserviceable until it has been checked by a LAME?
Common sense tells us that the answer is that the aircraft is still fit for purpose in both cases, but what does CASA say?
On a number of occasions I've found something that I had thought to be unserviceable and qureid the engineers to be told: "It always does that" and what the fix was, and the fix worked and there was no unserviceablity.
At other times I wouldn't accept "it always does that" when complaining about a rough idle and a linkage was immediately adjusted and ultimately replaced. That didn't get written up in the MR either.
On another occasion I rendered an aircraft unserviceable without knowing it - so nothing in the maintenace release until a few days later.
While I am not and never will be a commercial pilot or operator, what does one do when you are in the middle of nowhere and you hit an emu on landing or discover the proverbial burned out landing light?
You are flying day VFR, is your aircraft unserviceable according to CASA?
Does the small dent in the leading edge render your aircraft unserviceable until it has been checked by a LAME?
Common sense tells us that the answer is that the aircraft is still fit for purpose in both cases, but what does CASA say?
Sigh….
If you genuinely don’t know the answer to that question, it would explain a lot.
If that pilot gets in that aircraft and flies it out, knowing about the ding and not entering the damage in the MR and having it signed off by a LAME or CASA granting an SFP, the pilot is not only a criminal but an idiot. The pilot has NFI whether the ding is of a size and in a position that affects the structural integrity of the wing.
The fact that people take the risk and make it back does not make it right. People take the risk of drink driving and usually make it home too.
I’ll try one last time to make my point about entries on MRs.
A pilot puts this endorsement in the MR of a charter aircraft: “The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red.”
What rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?
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”?
I realise that some FOIs have weird and wacky views about what the rules mean. But that’s because they are recruited from an industry in which folklore circulates as gospel.
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 ?
If that pilot gets in that aircraft and flies it out, knowing about the ding and not entering the damage in the MR and having it signed off by a LAME or CASA granting an SFP, the pilot is not only a criminal but an idiot. The pilot has NFI whether the ding is of a size and in a position that affects the structural integrity of the wing.
The fact that people take the risk and make it back does not make it right. People take the risk of drink driving and usually make it home too.
I’ll try one last time to make my point about entries on MRs.
A pilot puts this endorsement in the MR of a charter aircraft: “The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red.”
What rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?
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”?
I realise that some FOIs have weird and wacky views about what the rules mean. But that’s because they are recruited from an industry in which folklore circulates as gospel.
I have been in this industry since 1986. I haven’t worked in GA for 13 years now but in that time things sound like they have gotten worse. My last company was an all piston twin operator (9 aircraft) and even we had an approved system of maintenance, i.e. 50 hour checks and MEL’s, Tech Logs etc. For an operator to have 30+ aircraft and still be operating on the generic 100 hourlies and maintenance release system amazes me. It gives you almost no flexibility in your operation. The cost of setting the system up is easily made up by allowing many items to be deferred under an MEL and still operate the aircraft.
For an operator to have allegedly been using a “Snag Book” (no such word exists by the way under any system of maintenance. All snags are defects period irrespective of how small they are) is inexcusable. If any operator gets caught out doing this then they must accept the consequences. It’s unfortunate but if pilots within these operators have gone along with this illegal practise then they too must accept the consequences. They have knowingly conspired to break the law. That’s your legal responsibility as PIC.
Some people here have attacked the alleged whistle blower. This is human nature unfortunately. The reason for that person leaving this operator is irrelevant though to the court. As long as their evidence is irrefutable, i.e. not word of mouth or here say, the evidence will stick.
I don’t know Creampuff personally but I have been here long enough to know their back ground. He/she is more than qualified to argue and substantiate their legal opinion to anything regarding the law both in the aviation and non aviation arena. I also know how to differentiate between the arguments by those obviously affected by this CASA grounding and those that are not.
For an operator to have allegedly been using a “Snag Book” (no such word exists by the way under any system of maintenance. All snags are defects period irrespective of how small they are) is inexcusable. If any operator gets caught out doing this then they must accept the consequences. It’s unfortunate but if pilots within these operators have gone along with this illegal practise then they too must accept the consequences. They have knowingly conspired to break the law. That’s your legal responsibility as PIC.
Some people here have attacked the alleged whistle blower. This is human nature unfortunately. The reason for that person leaving this operator is irrelevant though to the court. As long as their evidence is irrefutable, i.e. not word of mouth or here say, the evidence will stick.
I don’t know Creampuff personally but I have been here long enough to know their back ground. He/she is more than qualified to argue and substantiate their legal opinion to anything regarding the law both in the aviation and non aviation arena. I also know how to differentiate between the arguments by those obviously affected by this CASA grounding and those that are not.
Creampuff, what if our proverbial dent in the leading edge is exactly like all the other dents that have been inspected and passed by our LAME for years?
What about our burnt out landing light when we are flying only day VFR?
What about the quick phone call to the engineers back at base?
Where is the common sense and reasonableness? Are we regarded as too stupid?
What about our burnt out landing light when we are flying only day VFR?
What about the quick phone call to the engineers back at base?
Where is the common sense and reasonableness? Are we regarded as too stupid?
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Jan 2013 at 20:41.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What rule would you break if you flew the aircraft with that endorsement ‘open’ on the MR?
But that’s because they are recruited from an industry in which folklore circulates as gospel.
CAsA is also to blame, everyone in the industry is jumping at shadows and that is what CAsA appears to want, CAsA tries to push policy as law, interpretations change at the drop of a hat and often with massive implications to the sustainability of the business or the cost of operating ( i.e. Cessna SID )
New and far reaching legislation / policy is enacted based on CAsA officers personal opinions without any consideration as to how, can or will the industry be able to comply ( the tail wagging the dog ).
If that pilot gets in that aircraft and flies it out, knowing about the ding and not entering the damage in the MR and having it signed off by a LAME or CASA granting an SFP, the pilot is not only a criminal but an idiot. The pilot has NFI whether the ding is of a size and in a position that affects the structural integrity of the wing.
If the pilot is satisfield the aircraft is still servicable, i.e. the damage is not major, when the aircraft returns ( and it is fair to say by direct route to a maintenance base ) it is then handed over to the engineers for assessment / repairs, again, enter a subjective FOI / AWI who thinks it was an executable offence.
Two issues, open defect on MR and damage to wing.
OLC gets involved, lots of sabre rattling, threats of losing licence, 6 months pass, then it all disappears. no court case etc etc.
Titan, snags are not defects, if you believe this, I would suggest you've either forgotten what working in GA was really like or under estimate how CAsA has changed.
Barrier may very well operate using MELs, I have no idea.
What about the "small patch of corrosion on aileron" entry, how is this a defect that grounds the aircraft ?, would you want it removed before it becomes a "small hole in aileron "?.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 5th Jan 2013 at 20:53.
Are we maybe getting a little off topic? And not to mention a bit outrageous?
Coming back to the world of the normal, no one is going to endorse their MR with "The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red", I challenge someone to find that entry on any MR anywhere, so bit of a ridiculous question to ask. Same goes with "the aircraft is hard to land", once again, I really couldn't see even the most junior rookie pilot adding this to an MR.
BUT There are things that i've seen junior rookie pilots add such as "Left Fuel Gauge Overreading", now that was a "Grounding Item" but lets face it, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, if you have a dipstick and know your fuel burn, have a Fuel Flow Meter then its not really that big a deal, heck, if everyone put down that particular item on their MR half of Australias GA Single Fleet would probably be grounded. But it is something worthy of investigating and getting fixed the next time theirs a LAME looking over the aircraft, thusly the reason for snag lists. Alot of MELs would probably allow for such a thing to be U/S temporarily, but without that MEL it is still illegal cause of regulations, but not a safety issue with a calibrated dipstick.
This particular pilot who put down the Fuel Gauge got a reaming from the Chief Pilot, not for entering it into the MR but for not simply asking someone with more experience first, he did so and it wasn't till the next day someone went to fly it that it was found on the MR and the damned thing was grounded, luckily we had other Aircraft available and weren't particularly busy that day so it wasn't that great a deal.
My point is, and i'm trying to get back to Barrier and thusly a little on topic, does Barrier have any kind of Maintenance available in Horn Island? If so then when something becomes "U/S" it should be brought to the attention of a Senior Pilot and then brought up with the Engineers to determine if its an actual safety issue or not and then if necessary added to the MR and signed off by the engineer as being known but not an issue. If there is no Maintenance available for them I could understand a lack of MR U/S Items being written ("IF" this is indeed even what has happened, I don't think anyone has come out and said with 100% certainty that this is CASAs main issue) as it would be pointless to ground an aircraft for a non-item just to cover ones ass just incase one FOI decides to probe that little grey area left by that paragraph 10.1 that SDT Mentioned.
At the same time, an operator like Barrier doesn't have any great excuses for not having an MEL that is appropriately written up for their Aircraft, I understand its an expensive exercise, but so is either one aircraft or an entire fleet being grounded for not entering MR Items to satisfy normal regulatory requirements. On this same vein, does Barrier have MELs written up for all their Aircraft?
Also Sunfish, whilst your posts are usually well thought out i'd have to say any Pilot who takes off after hitting a Kangaroo without it being inspected/reported first is asking for any punishment that comes their way, its one of those things that simply is not the worth the risk and cannot be properly assessed by the average Pilot. Lets face it, between Pay Phones, Telstra NextG, HF and VHF there aren't a lot of strips regularly used that don't have some kind of communications available back to base. I vaguely remember a story a few years ago of someones homemade aircraft crashing on their base turn and almost killing the pilot involved, the reason being that he had designed the cockpit canopy an inch too high which disrupted the airflow over the elevator causing a loss of control, it was a simple thing that as a normal pilot would never be noticed, it was only revealed after the accident and it was examined closely by qualified people.
Coming back to the world of the normal, no one is going to endorse their MR with "The aircraft is painted white and I prefer red", I challenge someone to find that entry on any MR anywhere, so bit of a ridiculous question to ask. Same goes with "the aircraft is hard to land", once again, I really couldn't see even the most junior rookie pilot adding this to an MR.
BUT There are things that i've seen junior rookie pilots add such as "Left Fuel Gauge Overreading", now that was a "Grounding Item" but lets face it, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, if you have a dipstick and know your fuel burn, have a Fuel Flow Meter then its not really that big a deal, heck, if everyone put down that particular item on their MR half of Australias GA Single Fleet would probably be grounded. But it is something worthy of investigating and getting fixed the next time theirs a LAME looking over the aircraft, thusly the reason for snag lists. Alot of MELs would probably allow for such a thing to be U/S temporarily, but without that MEL it is still illegal cause of regulations, but not a safety issue with a calibrated dipstick.
This particular pilot who put down the Fuel Gauge got a reaming from the Chief Pilot, not for entering it into the MR but for not simply asking someone with more experience first, he did so and it wasn't till the next day someone went to fly it that it was found on the MR and the damned thing was grounded, luckily we had other Aircraft available and weren't particularly busy that day so it wasn't that great a deal.
My point is, and i'm trying to get back to Barrier and thusly a little on topic, does Barrier have any kind of Maintenance available in Horn Island? If so then when something becomes "U/S" it should be brought to the attention of a Senior Pilot and then brought up with the Engineers to determine if its an actual safety issue or not and then if necessary added to the MR and signed off by the engineer as being known but not an issue. If there is no Maintenance available for them I could understand a lack of MR U/S Items being written ("IF" this is indeed even what has happened, I don't think anyone has come out and said with 100% certainty that this is CASAs main issue) as it would be pointless to ground an aircraft for a non-item just to cover ones ass just incase one FOI decides to probe that little grey area left by that paragraph 10.1 that SDT Mentioned.
At the same time, an operator like Barrier doesn't have any great excuses for not having an MEL that is appropriately written up for their Aircraft, I understand its an expensive exercise, but so is either one aircraft or an entire fleet being grounded for not entering MR Items to satisfy normal regulatory requirements. On this same vein, does Barrier have MELs written up for all their Aircraft?
Also Sunfish, whilst your posts are usually well thought out i'd have to say any Pilot who takes off after hitting a Kangaroo without it being inspected/reported first is asking for any punishment that comes their way, its one of those things that simply is not the worth the risk and cannot be properly assessed by the average Pilot. Lets face it, between Pay Phones, Telstra NextG, HF and VHF there aren't a lot of strips regularly used that don't have some kind of communications available back to base. I vaguely remember a story a few years ago of someones homemade aircraft crashing on their base turn and almost killing the pilot involved, the reason being that he had designed the cockpit canopy an inch too high which disrupted the airflow over the elevator causing a loss of control, it was a simple thing that as a normal pilot would never be noticed, it was only revealed after the accident and it was examined closely by qualified people.
Last edited by Ixixly; 5th Jan 2013 at 20:59.
Creampuff, what if our proverbial dent in the leading edge is exactly like all the other dents that have been inspected and passed by our LAME for years?
What about our burnt out landing light when we are flying only day VFR?
What about the quick phone call to the engineers back at base?
Where is the common sense and reasonableness? Are we regarded as too stupid?
The regulatory option is patently clear and actually results in cost savings rather than law breaking.
Unfortunately, common sense is uncommon in GA and one pilot’s reasonable is another pilot’s unreasonable.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT There are things that i've seen junior rookie pilots add such as "Left Fuel Gauge Overreading", now that was a "Grounding Item" but lets face it, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, if you have a dipstick and know your fuel burn, have a Fuel Flow Meter then its not really that big a deal, heck, if everyone put down that particular item on their MR half of Australias GA Single Fleet would probably be grounded.
What are the consequences of not having that fuel gauge working properly? You've said if you have a known fuel quantity and a fuel flow meter/totaliser it's not a big deal. Fine and to an extent I agree with you... but you've already had one failure in your aircraft, what else could go wrong?
Your fuel flow meter could fail... big deal? Nah, not really, known power settings still burns fuel at a known rate give or take.
Your fuel system may develop a major or minor leak... big deal? Possibly! Where is the leak? If it's pouring out of the wing you should notice it before flight. What if you have a fuel injection system and the leak is past the fuel flow sensor on the return line? Your fuel flow meter thinks the fuel is going back to the tank, but it's not, it's now venting overboard and you're unlikely to notice. Would you notice this particular fault with a fuel gauge? Yup! How can we get back to the equivalent level of safety with broken fuel gauge then?
Well let's assume for a second this is the only possible downside we can think of to not having a fuel gauge (bad assumption, but trying to demonstrate the process the manufacturer goes down developing an MEL). The amount of fuel going through this return line is never going to be more than x litres per hour. The endurance from this tank is 3 hours. The most amount of fuel we can vent overboard might come out to 45 minutes.
So what would the MMEL or PUS say in this particular case? One I have operated under previously allowed the aircraft to continue to fly, providing...
a) The pilot is able to accurately determine the fuel quantity at each point of landing
b) The other fuel gauge remains operative (otherwise we could potentially have two leaks and double the amount of fuel we lose)
c) An extra hour of fuel must be carried
I would also disagree with your assertion that half the GA fleet would probably be grounded if pilots wrote up broken fuel gauges. The operator that obtained this PUS would have had strong words with any pilot involved had it not been written up. This same operator who from my point of view always did everything by the book with regards to maintenance, but guess what? They now have a number of their aircraft grounded by CASA due to concerns over their maintenance system. Yet according to you other muppets are still out there flying with broken equipment, not writing it up, being told not to write it up and allowed to continue flying.
Thank you for confirming my belief that CASA are going after the wrong operators in this industry. I am glad to see though that you would phone a friend after a birdstrike and get a second opinion and doing the right thing. Just disappointed to hear your maintenance organisation and senior pilots are potentially letting you down. Stay safe!
Shed Dog Tosser
I may have been out of GA for 13 years but my memory is very clear. My time as CP of two separate organisations and Maintenance controller is still just as clear today as it was 13 years ago. Please provide a CASA reference to what a “Snag” is and your argument will have some weight. A “Snag Log” is a shonky GA term invented by shonky GA operators. It's not as if operators weren't using them in my time as well you know.
A defect is a defect is a defect, period.
Titan, snags are not defects, if you believe this, I would suggest you've either forgotten what working in GA was really like or under estimate how CAsA has changed.
I may have been out of GA for 13 years but my memory is very clear. My time as CP of two separate organisations and Maintenance controller is still just as clear today as it was 13 years ago. Please provide a CASA reference to what a “Snag” is and your argument will have some weight. A “Snag Log” is a shonky GA term invented by shonky GA operators. It's not as if operators weren't using them in my time as well you know.
A defect is a defect is a defect, period.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 5th Jan 2013 at 22:28.
What about the "small patch of corrosion on aileron" entry, how is this a defect that grounds the aircraft ?, would you want it removed before it becomes a "small hole in aileron "?.
You (and Sunfish) also presume to make the technical judgement call in respect of the ding in the wing caused by a collision with a roo, when you are not qualified or authorised to make that call.
The reason CAO 20.18 para 10.1 is there is that fare paying passengers are entitled to be protected from pilots who fancy themselves as qualified aeronautical engineers and maintenance engineers. Fare paying passengers are entitled to get on board aircraft that have had all defects and damage inspected, rectified and certified by qualified and authorised personnel, unless flight with the defect or damage has been approved (MEL or PUS) by qualified and authorised personnel and the flight is in accordance with conditions set by those personnel.
If you want to get in a private aircraft and fly yourself around with dings in your wings caused by collisions with roos, fill your boots. But if one of my loved ones is sitting next to you or behind you, the regulator is coming to get you, and will get you.
Last edited by Creampuff; 5th Jan 2013 at 22:34.
I agree with you entirely Kalavo, you have to then make a decision on what else could go wrong and what you could do to mitigate such problems, this is the job of all Pilots irrespective of the law, to gather all available information and then make the safest decision based upon all available information. A broken fuel gauge itself isn't necessarily a fault that could indicate other further problems. As I stated though this is why you should bring it up with your Chief Pilot and/or HAAMC and/or a LAME, as I stated any defect whether major or minor should be inspected and then determine its level of effect on the safety of the aircraft.
My last company which also used MELs had this particular one written and stated that you could depart with one not working as long as the other was functional, you have and used a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel levels whenever practical and that fuel on board meets regulatory requirements.
Whoa, hang on a second there, In this situation your MEL told you to carry an extra hour of fuel and you couldn't depart without using a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel on board and have the other fuel gauge functioning. But how can you be certain the other fuel gauge is function properly? it might be going down as expected but what if it develops a fault and is actually overreading whilst the fuel tank is leaking? What if that Fuel Flow/Totaliser is also overreading and giving you false indications? What if you didn't realise you were on sloping ground when you dipped the tanks and therefore it isn't accurate? Yes you took actions to mitigate the risks but in the end pure bad luck could bring it all down, regardless of MEL or not. Theres always risks in Aviation, to believe that simply following all rules and regulations will always keep you safe is folly to say the least, but this doesn't excuse not doing everything reasonably within your power to mitigate all known and expected risks irrespective of what an MEL or rule or regulation tells you.
Honestly Kalavo, I think you and I are on the same page, I'm just trying to make my own point that MELs aren't the be all and end all, there just another layer of safety that common sense should, but can't always, provide. And I don't know about you, but certainly most S/E VFR Aircraft i've flown, I wouldn't really trust their fuel gauges, the IFR Twins were always great though, but they were of course maintained to a higher standard.
My last company which also used MELs had this particular one written and stated that you could depart with one not working as long as the other was functional, you have and used a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel levels whenever practical and that fuel on board meets regulatory requirements.
Whoa, hang on a second there, In this situation your MEL told you to carry an extra hour of fuel and you couldn't depart without using a calibrated dipstick to determine fuel on board and have the other fuel gauge functioning. But how can you be certain the other fuel gauge is function properly? it might be going down as expected but what if it develops a fault and is actually overreading whilst the fuel tank is leaking? What if that Fuel Flow/Totaliser is also overreading and giving you false indications? What if you didn't realise you were on sloping ground when you dipped the tanks and therefore it isn't accurate? Yes you took actions to mitigate the risks but in the end pure bad luck could bring it all down, regardless of MEL or not. Theres always risks in Aviation, to believe that simply following all rules and regulations will always keep you safe is folly to say the least, but this doesn't excuse not doing everything reasonably within your power to mitigate all known and expected risks irrespective of what an MEL or rule or regulation tells you.
Honestly Kalavo, I think you and I are on the same page, I'm just trying to make my own point that MELs aren't the be all and end all, there just another layer of safety that common sense should, but can't always, provide. And I don't know about you, but certainly most S/E VFR Aircraft i've flown, I wouldn't really trust their fuel gauges, the IFR Twins were always great though, but they were of course maintained to a higher standard.
Ixixly
No CP should ever ream a pilot for simply following the rules. These rules aren’t elective. In your example the CP is clearly the wrong person for the job. He should have instead been pressuring the owner to provide funding so that each aircraft had an approved MEL. The number of times stupid things like this ground an aircraft will soon make those that write the cheques realise and approved MEL/DDG is the way to go. When I introduced them we very quickly saw the benefits by being able to legally defer a great number of defects until a date limit, sector limit, hour limit or work shop visit.
I agree though MEL’s/DDG’s etc aren’t the be all end all but they will make what is clearly happening now with many GA operators legal but more importantly "a controlled system of defect management".
No CP should ever ream a pilot for simply following the rules. These rules aren’t elective. In your example the CP is clearly the wrong person for the job. He should have instead been pressuring the owner to provide funding so that each aircraft had an approved MEL. The number of times stupid things like this ground an aircraft will soon make those that write the cheques realise and approved MEL/DDG is the way to go. When I introduced them we very quickly saw the benefits by being able to legally defer a great number of defects until a date limit, sector limit, hour limit or work shop visit.
I agree though MEL’s/DDG’s etc aren’t the be all end all but they will make what is clearly happening now with many GA operators legal but more importantly "a controlled system of defect management".
Titan 404, I think you misunderstood me, he didn't get reamed out for putting it down on the MR, there was never any doubt that it worthy of being placed on the MR as our MELs at the time had been written but were still pending approval, what he got reamed out for was doing it without bringing it to anyones attention, not the CP or Operations and then tieing the aircraft down at the end of the day and subsequently leaving the fact it had been grounded to be discovered the next day by another Pilot.
The company I was with didn't have problems spending money, hell, I myself grounded an aircraft one day because the alternate air cable have snapped off, it was an item required by the POH (Once again, this was just prior to our MELs, one of the many reasons we were getting them put in, but it seems you fully understand the benefits!!) so once brought to the attention of the Chief Pilot it was duly placed on the MR and an engineer was flown out to get it fixed ASAP.
The company I was with didn't have problems spending money, hell, I myself grounded an aircraft one day because the alternate air cable have snapped off, it was an item required by the POH (Once again, this was just prior to our MELs, one of the many reasons we were getting them put in, but it seems you fully understand the benefits!!) so once brought to the attention of the Chief Pilot it was duly placed on the MR and an engineer was flown out to get it fixed ASAP.
Cream puff, I'm not. Arguing with regard to charter, I agree 100% that the paying public deserve to be carried in aircraft that comply.
I still have issues with what constitutes a defect and the way that defect may be cleared.
If we take the proverbial emu strike, and I detect a slight dent in the LE, where is the common sense in requiring an engineers presence when I can ring him, describe exactly the position and measurements of the ding and obtain his opinion if this is indeed a defect or no more than hangar rash.
Furthermore, if my c172 autopilot goes inop, am I supposed to terminate my day VFR flight?
I still have issues with what constitutes a defect and the way that defect may be cleared.
If we take the proverbial emu strike, and I detect a slight dent in the LE, where is the common sense in requiring an engineers presence when I can ring him, describe exactly the position and measurements of the ding and obtain his opinion if this is indeed a defect or no more than hangar rash.
Furthermore, if my c172 autopilot goes inop, am I supposed to terminate my day VFR flight?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, it comes as no suprise to me that you are unwilling to accept anything other than the black and white version of all this, and I do not wonder why.
Titan, is a small patch of corrosion on the aileron a defect and grounds an aircraft ?, if so, you are truely out of touch.
Titan, is a small patch of corrosion on the aileron a defect and grounds an aircraft ?, if so, you are truely out of touch.