CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations

[new direction]

MELS

MELS are a great idea and in practise work very well saving the operator and the client much pain and hardship. All companies big and small should operate using the added safety and flexibility a MEL offers. A MEL will cost approximately $2400.00 per type plus you can add an extra few dollars for individual intricacies for individual aircraft of that type. This amount of money can easily be saved the first time the MEL is used to save a charter which would otherwise be grounded. I would be very surprised if Barrier Aviation indeed operated that many aircraft with out so much as a simple MEL. If the company did operate with out one it is not a crime. But its not good business sense either.

N.D

[blackhand]

Like others I am nonplussed that someone would run a large fleet without a SOM or MEL. There is a generic MMEL (FAA) for SE aircraft that is easily used to generate an MEL for each aircraft type. As for costs of an MEL, they are simple and easy to write, well cut and paste anyway, so costs should be minimal.

Happy New Year

[Phil O'Rupp]

Sunfish, I think the concern after hitting an animal is not solely the dent it makes in the leading edge. What effect has the force that made the dent excerted on the underlying structure of the wing. Let's say I hit an emu or a roo near the wingtip at speed on landing. It makes a bit of a dent on the leading edge but doesn't look too bad aerodynamically. As a pilot am I qualified to determine that that's the only damage and the aircraft is safe to fly without being inspected by an engineer?

[404 Titan]

Ixixly

The only crime I can see the young pilot did was not telling someone “after” he made the entry, not for making the entry. It is the PIC legal responsibility to make the entries, not the CP or a maintenance controller/manager, etc. There is clearly an organisational problem in any operator if a pilot is required or feels compelled to report a maintenance issue prior to entering it on a MR. There is though a problem with any pilot who doesn’t report an item he/she has just entered in a MR, especially if it grounds an aircraft. I would’ve ripped any of my pilots a new A*** Hole for committing that crime.

[Trent 972]

There is clearly an organisational problem in any operator if a pilot is required or feels compelled to report a maintenance issue prior to entering it on a MR.

Big call 404.
I take it you don't phone/acars ahead with any maintenance issues so that your employer can gather the resources to correct the issue.
I know at a big red and white airline I work at, we do.
Maybe that is what a 'Snag' book does in GA.

[Ixixly]

Pretty sure we agree entirely then Titan 404, only last thing I realise I should clarify is that this was my first full-time job and as such there were a lot of other newbie pilots there as well, which was one of the main reasons the Chief Pilot wanted things like this brought to his attention first to make sure it was dealt with correctly, it was an oversight thing, not some kind of dodgey don't log safety issues things. So not so much an "Organisational Problem" as a recognition that newbie pilots don't always have the knowledge and/or experience and need experienced persons to help and guide them to make sure issues that pertain to safety are dealt with appropriately.

And he was mainly reamed out for not reporting it to anyone as you agreed was a big issue.

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

Corrosion of any sought is a defect just as torn upholstery on the interior is. Corrosion of any sort can most certainly ground any aircraft but only an engineer is qualified to make that call. Corrosion though on the outside of any aircraft isn’t suddenly going to appear if it is properly maintained and the pilot properly carries out a proper daily/pre flight inspected. In other words it isn’t the type of defect that is suddenly going to bight you on the b*m.

Simply calling me out of touch indicates to me your lack of a cohesive and sensible argument. I ask you again, find me a reference in the CAR’s, CAO’s etc to what a “Snag” is and I will eat humble pie.

Trent 972

If the defect arises in flight I do. I certainly don’t get the permission from engineering to right it up in the tech log. If the defect was discovered during a turn around it would be entered in the tech log, engineering would be informed and the aircraft would either be grounded or most likely the attending engineer would dispatch it under the appropriate MEL if possible.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

Phil has answered your question about what you describe as a ‘slight dent’. BTW, the engineer can clear the endorsement remotely.

Furthermore, if my c172 autopilot goes inop, am I supposed to terminate my day VFR flight?

Of course not. You’re not obliged to terminate, so it’s your choice.

And if it’s a private flight VFR and you would like to continue on your merry way after landing and refuelling, you are allowed to continue on your merry way after you have endorsed the MR with the inop A/P and placarded the A/P as inop.

And if it’s a charter or RPT flight and you would like to continue on your merry way after landing and refuelling, you are allowed to continue on your merry way if an inop A/P is a PUS/MEL item and you comply with the conditions applicable to flight with an inop A/P and you’ve endorsed the MR and placarded the A/P as inop.

SDT: Titan, is a small patch of corrosion on the aileron a defect and grounds an aircraft ?, if so, you are truely out of touch.

I think you are truly failing to understand that entering a defect or damage on an MR does not necessarily ‘ground’ the aircraft. 404 explained it for you.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

On one hand you two are saying that a small patch of corrosion on the aileron is a defect and must be written up and will ground the aircraft.

On the other, you claim that it is possible to an open item on a MR.

I think you are truly failing to understand that entering a defect or damage on an MR does not necessarily ‘ground’ the aircraft. 404 explained it for you.

You clearly do not know how this is being enforced (20.18) out in the field by FOI / AWI/s, if its open, and not on the MEL, the aircraft is grounded, irrespective of the item being a defect, observation or wish list to santa claus.

Titan, the legislation deals with defect, what about items that are not defects ?, how can they be relayed to the company, so they can be looked at before becoming a defect ? ( have you read the last four or so pages of this thread ?).

A snag is not in the legislation, because snags are not defects.

To state that anything worthy of note is a defect, if you truly believe this, stay in your sheltered workplace, I think the real world might be a bit scary for you.

[psycho joe]

This thread has taken a decidedly interesting turn, considering the history of Horn Island.

Quite a few moons ago a Horn Island CP tried to introduce a "snag log" or as he called it a " supplementary MR" in the form of an exercise book.

When the Pilots were pressured to use this dodgy MR, they took their concerns to CASA. To say the least, snag logs or supplimentary MR's didn't go down too well with the regulator.

I'll never forget the look on the FOI's face as he was proudly presented the exercise book MR. Nor will I forget the screaming.

[Creampuff]

SDT: Just goes to show that some FOIs and AWIs have as much understanding of the rules as some posters in this thread.

BTW, the rules deal with damage as well as defects.

[aussie_hawk]

As to the question of MEL's and a SOM, I can say first hand that Barrier's Islanders on Horn Island were operated using both of these. Not sure of the couple that were leased, if they were the same. The Barrier SOM was I believe from my poor memory was based on the Manufacturer's recommend system of maintenance.

As to the said former employee, some of your current rumoured actions in regard current employees is despicable and bordering on the illegal and I pray that they are not true.

I hope that all can be resolved soon, with Barrier given every opportunity to return to the air.

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

“Snag” isn’t defined in the CAR’s, CAO’s etc because CASA defines all “Broken Items” for want of a better term as defects, period. The real problem is that some GA operators refuse to pay for and set up a suitable MEL/DDG/CDL system. By the way if properly set up and worded correctly in the OPS manual, most defects that can be deferred under a MEL can be left unsigned for by an engineer until passing through home base if an engineer can’t be found in an outport.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that a properly set up and approved MEL/DDG/CDL will essentially allow what is done unofficially and illegally now with a “Snag Log” by some operators to be done legally. This is why I put my balls on the line about 15 years ago and convinced my boss to fork out the dosh and set one up.

Again you resort to character assignation rather than debating the man. How about we keep it civil. I might work for a major airline now but I spent 13 years in FNQ including the Straits and PNG. I think I know what I am talking about.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Again you resort to character assignation rather than debating the man.

Oh, stop it.

because CASA defines all “Broken Items” for want of a better term as defects, period

You are just not listening are you ?.

Not all observations are defects.

For another example, did you read the couple of posts about the oil consumption of 1.5 qts per hour ? (posts 168, 170, 174 and 176 ).

Normally the pilot observes oil consumption of less than 1 qts per hour.

This particular aircraft is noted to be consuming around 1.5 qts per hour.

The limit in the engine or aircraft manual is 2 qts per hour.

If this 1.5 qts is written on an MR, even though it is below the limit in the aircraft / maintenance manual, it will be deemed unservicable and defective as it is not in the MEL as it is not a "broken" piece of equipment.

If the 1.5 qts per hour observation is not passed on to the maintenance controller, it will not be programmed to be investigated until it is a real defect, i.e. 2 qts per hour or greater oil consumption.

If you respond with the " you can write the 1.5 qts per hour on an MR and have it as an open item and you will be OK", I will respond no further.

What I and others are trying to tell you is that a properly set up and approved MEL/DDG/CDL will essentially allow what is done unofficially and illegally now with a “Snag Log” by some operators to be done legally.

That is partially true, but I say again, I am not talking about genuine defects, there are issues other than defects.

Snags are not defects, so they are not covered by legislation one way or the other.

Forrest for the trees.

Snags are not defects, but will need attention.

A defect is a defect, so what if a "snag" is not in the base legislation.

I wish I could see things as simply as you do, black and white.

[Arnold E]

This particular aircraft is noted to be consuming around 1.5 qts per hour.

All the other aircraft in the fleet consume 1qt and this one consumes 1.5. How do you know it is not defective in some way?? Broken oil ring for instance, how did you come to the conclusion that this engine was ok despite having significantly higher consumption than the rest of the fleet? Remember, 2qts is only the maximum allowed.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

And we all wonder why GA is dieing.

[Creampuff]

But why on earth would you enter the endorsement: "Oil consumption of 1.5 qts per hour", when each uplift of oil should be recorded on the MR/approved equivalent anyway? The rate of oil consumption for each engine is evident on the face of the MR/approved equivalent, isn't it?

[OpsNormal]

Stop for a moment, all of you.

Between all of you not many of you agree with (what should be) a simple concept of either broken or not, or written up or not.

No wonder CASA front line staff have the same issues.....

I'm not CASA, nor am I ever likely to work for them, however if you lot cannot agree then what hope do they have? The FOI's that I have dealt with on previous occasions are just people trying to earn a living like you and I.

I will only add one other concept to the discussion, if only to cast some illumination of something that has been overlooked....

What does the preamble of Barrier's Master MEL/S.O.M say in relation to aircraft defects or items that do not fall into the bounds of the applicable MEL? I would suggest to most of you that without knowledge of that document many of you are piddling directly into a stiff breeze...

Regards,

OpsN.

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

You keep referring to “Snag” when under the reg’s no differentiation is legally provided for. We all at sometime shake our head with some of the reg’s but unfortunately we are bound by them. We must all work within them. You cannot just pick and choose which ones you wish to adhere to and you certainly can’t just keep making stuff up to suite your own particular argument or point of view.

Regarding the oil consumption, there should be some system of monitoring the health of all aircraft in an operator’s fleet. In my last GA Company that I was CP of, as well as having MEL’s and CDL which were part of our system of maintenance which in turn broadly followed Cessna’s system of maintenance for each aircraft type, we also had trend monitoring. On every flight the PIC had to record all the engine parameters on the tech log page which were uploaded to computer the next morning for the maintenance controller and engineering to look over and take action if something was observed out of the ordinary. Again these types of things shouldn’t just jump out at you but if they do, alarm bells should start ringing.

While CASA and Federal Government policy should most certainly be blamed for a lot of GA’s problems, some of the problems though are self inflicted.

OpsNormal

Between all of you not many of you agree with (what should be) a simple concept of either broken or not, or written up or not.

I don’t think that is the case at all. If something is broken it is broken and is therefore a defect by definition and must be written up.

What does the preamble of Barrier's Master MEL/S.O.M say in relation to aircraft defects or items that do not fall into the bounds of the applicable MEL? I would suggest to most of you that without knowledge of that document many of you are piddling directly into a stiff breeze...

That type of stuff is usually covered in the pre-amble of most MEL’s and from what I have seen are pretty generic, i.e. if not covered must be serviceable. They also usually say any item which is related to airworthiness and aren’t included in the MEL are automatically required to be working.

[Defenestrator]

I can't find fault with anything you've said 404 Titan. In fact the organisation I work with has an almost identical system and attitude towards defects ie. anything that isn't as it should be. Only difference is that, in addition to the MEL, we also have an 'advisory' section on the AML that covers the snags that Shed Dog Tosser is eluding to. These however, are written up in consultation with the HAAMC to ensure that further flight in the aircraft is safe (and legal) sans a LAME directly inspecting the defect. Furthermore advisory AML's can be also be entered by Engineering if they're seeking further feedback on a fault, especially if not able to be replicated on the ground.

No mystical 'snag books' necessary and complete transparency provided throughout, most importantly, to the next operating crew.

No doubt I'll be shot down by the usual suspects that believe common sense should prevail as a form of regulation. Unfortunately, from what I've observed, common sense isn't very common these days.

D