CAO 100.5 Amendment 13
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought all these had crashed in the 1st world war!!!!! Sorry I missed these ones!! Not quite ALL
But there are also non-commercial GA aircraft in PVT category though.
But there are also non-commercial GA aircraft in PVT category though.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMROBA crib
Trying to find the mirrors through the smoke, I cribbed this article from the excellent AMROBA web site.
I also stumbled over some very informative reading, like this one. There's no doubt about it; if you want a second opinion on CASA, just ask them.
CASA issued and then repealed the following CAR 38(1) maintenance direction to all Registered Operators of aircraft. CAO 100.5 paragraph 9.1: “For subregulation 38 (1) of the Regulations, CASA directs the registered operator of an Australian aircraft to comply with the maintenance requirements for the aircraft and its aeronautical products, including life-limits, as established under the approved design for the aircraft or product.”
Though this direction is under a heading that was once related to Time Lifed Components that were in the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Maintenance Manual, this direction is all encompassing whether the aircraft is currently being maintained to the CASA Maintenance Schedule, the aircraft manufacturers’ maintenance schedule or a system of maintenance.
Some have also raised the issue that it applies to an “Australian Aircraft”. The Civil Aviation Act defines an Australian aircraft as: (a) an aircraft registered in Australia; and (b) an aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
In other words, it applies to more than just aircraft registered in Australia; it also applies to all aircraft in Australian territory. The Act definition, if applied to this direction, would encompass aircraft registered with other bodies beside CASA.
This direction does not state aircraft registered with CASA – it refers to “Australian aircraft”.
AMROBA raised the problem with the wording of the Act previously with CASA.
So, after two decades of amended Aircraft Maintenance Schedules/Systems of Maintenance by Registered Operators, this direction overrides previous justifications and directs the adoption of aircraft and product manufacturer’s maintenance requirements.
“Under the approved design for the aircraft OR product”.
This means all manufacturers, aircraft and product, must now be complied with.
AMROBA has raised the issue with CASA. We have also advised operator associations like AOPA, AAAA AWA of this issue.
Though this direction is under a heading that was once related to Time Lifed Components that were in the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Maintenance Manual, this direction is all encompassing whether the aircraft is currently being maintained to the CASA Maintenance Schedule, the aircraft manufacturers’ maintenance schedule or a system of maintenance.
Some have also raised the issue that it applies to an “Australian Aircraft”. The Civil Aviation Act defines an Australian aircraft as: (a) an aircraft registered in Australia; and (b) an aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
In other words, it applies to more than just aircraft registered in Australia; it also applies to all aircraft in Australian territory. The Act definition, if applied to this direction, would encompass aircraft registered with other bodies beside CASA.
This direction does not state aircraft registered with CASA – it refers to “Australian aircraft”.
AMROBA raised the problem with the wording of the Act previously with CASA.
So, after two decades of amended Aircraft Maintenance Schedules/Systems of Maintenance by Registered Operators, this direction overrides previous justifications and directs the adoption of aircraft and product manufacturer’s maintenance requirements.
“Under the approved design for the aircraft OR product”.
This means all manufacturers, aircraft and product, must now be complied with.
AMROBA has raised the issue with CASA. We have also advised operator associations like AOPA, AAAA AWA of this issue.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this a pilots forum?
owen meaney
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 50
Posts: 115
I am actually a 15 year old model aircraft fabricator with nothing better to do than sniff glue and post on aviation forums
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 50
Posts: 115
I am actually a 15 year old model aircraft fabricator with nothing better to do than sniff glue and post on aviation forums
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addendum
Bad 004 – No Choccy frog.....
There is, on this forum a prerequisite for concise definition within the descriptive, particularly when detailing technical matters. In your example # 84 it is essential that the intake end be correctly identified as well as the exhaust end. I suggest you correctly redefine from which from end of the horse the alleged data was acquired.
There is, on this forum a prerequisite for concise definition within the descriptive, particularly when detailing technical matters. In your example # 84 it is essential that the intake end be correctly identified as well as the exhaust end. I suggest you correctly redefine from which from end of the horse the alleged data was acquired.
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Aug 2013 at 19:54.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and part 100.5
casa claim that there is no major effect to aviation due 100.5, yet they publish the following yesterday:
Is this burying the matter again??
Project CS 13/27
Project CS 13/27 - Review the requirements for the calibration for certain aircraft instruments when the aircraft is operating under the Visual Flight Rules
Issue
Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) (CAR) 39 (Class A aircraft) and 41 (Class B aircraft) require that all aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft, are maintained. Those regulations go further and prohibit operation of that aircraft unless there is a maintenance program that includes instructions for all those components included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Three Airworthiness Directives (ADs) were published to address the needs of certain instruments to ensure consistent standards were being applied:
CAO 100.5 requires that all aircraft, with some exemptions, operating in Australian airspace are to have specific maintenance tasks completed on the aircraft's pitot static system, including altimeter and airspeed indicator every 2 years and the fuel quantity indicating system every 4 years. Exempted aircraft are those aircraft which have an existing approved maintenance program that includes these specific requirements.
CAR 39 and 41 make no distinction as to the nature of operations the aircraft is to be used for. To allow aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules to be excluded from the requirement to regularly maintain certain aircraft instruments and systems would require CAR 39 and 41 to be amended or that provision included in the proposed CASR Part 91.
Concerns have been raised by some members of the aviation industry that the current universal requirements to regularly calibrate certain aircraft instruments and systems are an unnecessary cost impost on some sections of the aviation industry in Australia and are unwarranted.
By not requiring a section of the Australian fleet to perform regular maintenance on certain equipment when they are potentially operating in the same airspace as aircraft being maintained may increase the risk of loss of separation.
A Discussion Paper will be prepared and released to determine the extent of the concern regarding the costs of these maintenance actions for aircraft operating under the VFR and the associated risks. This may lead to further consultation linked to regulatory changes.
Project objective
To release a Discussion Paper to present the issues and, following review of responses, determine if further action is warranted.
Rules affected
CAR 39, CAR 41, CASR 91, CAO 100.5
Status
This project was approved by: Peter Boyd on 22 October 2013.
Project management
Project Leader/s: Charles Lenarcic
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Mick McGill
Project Priority
Medium
Project CS 13/27 - Review the requirements for the calibration for certain aircraft instruments when the aircraft is operating under the Visual Flight Rules
Issue
Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) (CAR) 39 (Class A aircraft) and 41 (Class B aircraft) require that all aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft, are maintained. Those regulations go further and prohibit operation of that aircraft unless there is a maintenance program that includes instructions for all those components included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Three Airworthiness Directives (ADs) were published to address the needs of certain instruments to ensure consistent standards were being applied:
- AD/INST/8 applicable to aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR),
- AD/INST/9 applicable to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and
- AD/RAD/43 applicable to any aircraft fitted with a transponder and altitude encoding equipment and operating under either the VFR or IFR.
CAO 100.5 requires that all aircraft, with some exemptions, operating in Australian airspace are to have specific maintenance tasks completed on the aircraft's pitot static system, including altimeter and airspeed indicator every 2 years and the fuel quantity indicating system every 4 years. Exempted aircraft are those aircraft which have an existing approved maintenance program that includes these specific requirements.
CAR 39 and 41 make no distinction as to the nature of operations the aircraft is to be used for. To allow aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules to be excluded from the requirement to regularly maintain certain aircraft instruments and systems would require CAR 39 and 41 to be amended or that provision included in the proposed CASR Part 91.
Concerns have been raised by some members of the aviation industry that the current universal requirements to regularly calibrate certain aircraft instruments and systems are an unnecessary cost impost on some sections of the aviation industry in Australia and are unwarranted.
By not requiring a section of the Australian fleet to perform regular maintenance on certain equipment when they are potentially operating in the same airspace as aircraft being maintained may increase the risk of loss of separation.
A Discussion Paper will be prepared and released to determine the extent of the concern regarding the costs of these maintenance actions for aircraft operating under the VFR and the associated risks. This may lead to further consultation linked to regulatory changes.
Project objective
To release a Discussion Paper to present the issues and, following review of responses, determine if further action is warranted.
Rules affected
CAR 39, CAR 41, CASR 91, CAO 100.5
Status
This project was approved by: Peter Boyd on 22 October 2013.
Project management
Project Leader/s: Charles Lenarcic
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Mick McGill
Project Priority
Medium
Is this burying the matter again??
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
