Cost of 100 hourly's
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my thoughts are that the casa micromanagement totally skews the environment to the detriment.
if I put my car in for servicing the mechanic will tell me if he discovers anything that needs to be done beyond what the basic service costs. we then work out together what the course of action will be.
Unless the guy is a total shonky the owner will take the car away satisfied.
in aviation this isn't the case. LAME's think that they work for CASA and the owner is a fool. often the owner is told nothing about the problems found and walks into the shop past an aeroplane that looks pretty much the way he left it and gets the bill.
in the case of an aeroplane I flew down for maintenance with the owner as a passenger with a broken foot. the owner was hit with a $12,000 bill for the annual. the LAME made no effort to tell the owner that he had found a problem, a chafed engine mount tube.
the really frustrating thing is that the owner is a far better TIG welder than the guy the LAME used and could have done the job for nothing.
The basic relationship between a LAME doing an annual should be a simple commercial relationship with the owner. CASA doesn't own the aeroplane.
the problem is that CASA is so overbearing that LAME's turn their attention to servicing the regulatory overhead and ignore the customer.
It is not a good healthy environment thanks to CASA.
if I put my car in for servicing the mechanic will tell me if he discovers anything that needs to be done beyond what the basic service costs. we then work out together what the course of action will be.
Unless the guy is a total shonky the owner will take the car away satisfied.
in aviation this isn't the case. LAME's think that they work for CASA and the owner is a fool. often the owner is told nothing about the problems found and walks into the shop past an aeroplane that looks pretty much the way he left it and gets the bill.
in the case of an aeroplane I flew down for maintenance with the owner as a passenger with a broken foot. the owner was hit with a $12,000 bill for the annual. the LAME made no effort to tell the owner that he had found a problem, a chafed engine mount tube.
the really frustrating thing is that the owner is a far better TIG welder than the guy the LAME used and could have done the job for nothing.
The basic relationship between a LAME doing an annual should be a simple commercial relationship with the owner. CASA doesn't own the aeroplane.
the problem is that CASA is so overbearing that LAME's turn their attention to servicing the regulatory overhead and ignore the customer.
It is not a good healthy environment thanks to CASA.
Thread Starter
We had a $30,000 annual with bugger all warning. At the same time my daughters car was at the mechanic chasing a problem. I got a phonecall from the mechanic after he found the problem, before he took action because it required an expensive part - a $300 fan.
Why can car mechanics pick up the phone for $300 but LAME's won't for $30k?
Why can car mechanics pick up the phone for $300 but LAME's won't for $30k?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmm
Well as an LAME now entering my 35 year in the industry ill tell you all this. The LAME has been suberizing the industry for ever. But know its stopping. People are leaving in droves. You see anyone can become a pilot, have a look around how many people do you know that don't make it. Not everyone wants to work for the airlines. When we sign off we are liable for that aircraft for the next 12months and that means every thing that has taken past prior to that date as well.
I've use this before so have a think about this. Then next have a think about what we do how we do it and why we do it, and then ask why would we do it.
If you have a heart problem and you require surgery. Who you going to get to do it. New guy 70k a year he is on. Next guy really good 150k a year or the professor well he is the best 300k a year. Now when I ask well everyone with out emptions has said well 1st guy no, he not going to be leaning on me. 3rd guy yep but I cant afford him so 2nd fella can afford him and should be good. When I ask but you could use the 1st guy , oh he has my life in his hands. MMM good point, now I say this. tomorrow when you leave here and this engine I've just installed goes buuuuurrrrrbbb bubble brrrrrr and stops and you go oh f%&* and you look beside you and behind you now who is worth more than what you are paying us. Now remember CASA requirements are set by law, in most cases local areas have different ideas strange but true. When an aircraft has an incident every thing is look at from the front to the back. We are presumed guilty and have to prove innocence. Where else is that in Australia.
As for rates well most Toyota, Holden Ford are when worked out $140 an hour. Now look at manuals and keeping them updated. Basic library's $25k plus at a minimum. Now you have to keep it updated another 5k a year for that service. Now for paper work oh gee we just love paper we dream about it NOT, this is part of doing the job we have to do. Now we have CASA audits getting a x against you name cause the sheet of ally hasn't got a grn at both ends of the sheet or the store door is unlocked or your tool box is messy { **** me im working ********} you haven't got a date on that piece of paper you have just printed off the m/m. Or my all time favourite is you haven't put on your work sheet what you done it too, meaning instead of have done iaw C185 M/M you now have to say cause it may be confused that you may have used the a Boeing 747 m/m. C/O IAW C185 M.M chap 32/03/05. Now add that cost into your bill.
The biggest problem is that most private people cannot afford to own and run a private aircraft, sad but true. LAMEs are leaving the industry quicker and more now than ever before and are not being replaced, now the way CASA has been manipulated by a certain airline to change the licencing that is now sending it maintenance of shore the problem is going to get much worse, I don't advise anyone to come into the industry anymore I steer them away.
Aircraft engineering is far more complex than you can ever imagine. Just to keep in touch with rule changes to keep people in jobs threat of fines hanging over you if you make a mistake plus all the other commercial pressures that are also carried by the LAME. At the end of the day an hourly rate that is way to low. Im sorry if you think its to high well tuff, my advise to you start paying more before you will really have to pay more.
Now as why we do it ?
I've use this before so have a think about this. Then next have a think about what we do how we do it and why we do it, and then ask why would we do it.
If you have a heart problem and you require surgery. Who you going to get to do it. New guy 70k a year he is on. Next guy really good 150k a year or the professor well he is the best 300k a year. Now when I ask well everyone with out emptions has said well 1st guy no, he not going to be leaning on me. 3rd guy yep but I cant afford him so 2nd fella can afford him and should be good. When I ask but you could use the 1st guy , oh he has my life in his hands. MMM good point, now I say this. tomorrow when you leave here and this engine I've just installed goes buuuuurrrrrbbb bubble brrrrrr and stops and you go oh f%&* and you look beside you and behind you now who is worth more than what you are paying us. Now remember CASA requirements are set by law, in most cases local areas have different ideas strange but true. When an aircraft has an incident every thing is look at from the front to the back. We are presumed guilty and have to prove innocence. Where else is that in Australia.
As for rates well most Toyota, Holden Ford are when worked out $140 an hour. Now look at manuals and keeping them updated. Basic library's $25k plus at a minimum. Now you have to keep it updated another 5k a year for that service. Now for paper work oh gee we just love paper we dream about it NOT, this is part of doing the job we have to do. Now we have CASA audits getting a x against you name cause the sheet of ally hasn't got a grn at both ends of the sheet or the store door is unlocked or your tool box is messy { **** me im working ********} you haven't got a date on that piece of paper you have just printed off the m/m. Or my all time favourite is you haven't put on your work sheet what you done it too, meaning instead of have done iaw C185 M/M you now have to say cause it may be confused that you may have used the a Boeing 747 m/m. C/O IAW C185 M.M chap 32/03/05. Now add that cost into your bill.
The biggest problem is that most private people cannot afford to own and run a private aircraft, sad but true. LAMEs are leaving the industry quicker and more now than ever before and are not being replaced, now the way CASA has been manipulated by a certain airline to change the licencing that is now sending it maintenance of shore the problem is going to get much worse, I don't advise anyone to come into the industry anymore I steer them away.
Aircraft engineering is far more complex than you can ever imagine. Just to keep in touch with rule changes to keep people in jobs threat of fines hanging over you if you make a mistake plus all the other commercial pressures that are also carried by the LAME. At the end of the day an hourly rate that is way to low. Im sorry if you think its to high well tuff, my advise to you start paying more before you will really have to pay more.
Now as why we do it ?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love GA, but I left it because of some of the reasons listed above. Got all my LAME tickets for retirement and got out. It's very difficult to make a living being a LAME in GA. This thread is a typical example of why being a GA LAME is a bad idea.
No support. Poor income stream. No training. Very few good mentors left. Couple that with the regulator hiding behind your bedroom door just hoping for a chance to send you to prison and fine you your life savings. No thanks.
I love the fact that there's a thread on the 'Cost of 100 hourly's'. As if any one is comparable to the next.
It's like when you sell a V8 and someone asks 'what kind of fuel economy does it get?'
No support. Poor income stream. No training. Very few good mentors left. Couple that with the regulator hiding behind your bedroom door just hoping for a chance to send you to prison and fine you your life savings. No thanks.
I love the fact that there's a thread on the 'Cost of 100 hourly's'. As if any one is comparable to the next.
It's like when you sell a V8 and someone asks 'what kind of fuel economy does it get?'
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: sUNBURY
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buying vs Renting
Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
Depending on the aircraft type and age, you might be up for $11-12k for the 100 hourly / annual inspection!
Quite a few flying schools will refuse to train you in your own aircraft. Those that will, will charge you $100 - $250 per hour to do so. Have you spoken to your school about this? This knocks a big hole in what you can save.
My recommendation is that you find a flying school that teaches under the RAA banner. Get an RAA licence then convert it to a CASA RPL, this is only a paperwork exercise plus a bit of instrument flying.
Then consider a GA aircraft and do the required flight review in it to validate your CASA RPL. Again some flying schools will not do flight reviews in aircraft other than theirs. Ask around.
Finally, owning an aircraft requires a lot of research, this will be easier if you have the experience of actually being a pilot. What StickWithThe Truth said re maintenance cost is a common trap that devastates new owners.
My recommendation is that you find a flying school that teaches under the RAA banner. Get an RAA licence then convert it to a CASA RPL, this is only a paperwork exercise plus a bit of instrument flying.
Then consider a GA aircraft and do the required flight review in it to validate your CASA RPL. Again some flying schools will not do flight reviews in aircraft other than theirs. Ask around.
Finally, owning an aircraft requires a lot of research, this will be easier if you have the experience of actually being a pilot. What StickWithThe Truth said re maintenance cost is a common trap that devastates new owners.
Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.
Now with renting you never see that money again.
I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training?
Sound advice: "...owning an aircraft requires a lot of research, this will be easier if you have the experience of actually being a pilot..."
.
Don't expect much of a welcome at a flying school which already operates under extremely tight margins when you come in with your il conceived proposal to undercut them further.
We've seen a lot of inexperienced and new to aviation individuals try this and similar games in the past. They don't last long and it usually ends in tears....for them.
We've seen a lot of inexperienced and new to aviation individuals try this and similar games in the past. They don't last long and it usually ends in tears....for them.
Thread Starter
My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it
Aircraft used to hold value / increase. But that was mainly in the period when the $A was devaluing. Don't expect an aircraft to hold value / be an asset any more.
You have control over who flies it and what upgrades you do. But the CASA system conspires to rob you of any real control over its maintenance - to the detriment of the asset value of your aircraft and safety.
I should add that I do own and aircraft and would not wish to fly IFR in rented aircraft. But the price of playing in this sandpit is high.
Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.
Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.
We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.
One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.
By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.
For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.
Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.
With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.
How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".
As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.
Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.
I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.
Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??
We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".
For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.
All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.
Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.
We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.
One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.
By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.
For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.
Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.
With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.
How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".
As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.
Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.
I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.
Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??
We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".
For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.
All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.
Last edited by LeadSled; 16th Nov 2017 at 11:52.
Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.
Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.
We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.
One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.
By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.
For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.
Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.
With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.
How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".
As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.
Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.
I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.
Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??
We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".
For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.
All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.
Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.
We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.
One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.
By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.
For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.
Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.
With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.
How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".
As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.
Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.
I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.
Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??
We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".
For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.
All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.
Where do we record the calibrated tooling number and its next due date? what is the torque of that yellow valve cap?
what is the torque if you use a crows foot and not a socket?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the automobile mechanic phones you regarding a $300 part is that, if they perform the work WITHOUT consent, the customer does not have to pay for it. That's why dealership Service Advisors have you sign the Repair Order before they begin work on the vehicle.
LAMEs on the other hand, have perhaps not encountered this phenomenon and I have associates who have experienced the LAME quoting a job to get the work, then when it's time to pick up the bird, the quote has blown out. (By several THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)It's the same principal, but the dealers have been burnt doing this, so they get approval... It's hard to stand up to an expert working on your bird though...
LAMEs on the other hand, have perhaps not encountered this phenomenon and I have associates who have experienced the LAME quoting a job to get the work, then when it's time to pick up the bird, the quote has blown out. (By several THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)It's the same principal, but the dealers have been burnt doing this, so they get approval... It's hard to stand up to an expert working on your bird though...
So some know there is a torque others don't - some write the reference others don't - some check if their data is current others don't - some certify for it others don't.
Now just how long will it take to do a tire pressure check and do the paperwork (inc invoice) listing the reference material inc chapter and calibrated tool reference details and next due dates?
Now just how long will it take to do a tire pressure check and do the paperwork (inc invoice) listing the reference material inc chapter and calibrated tool reference details and next due dates?
There is no torque stipulated for the valve cap.
On the tubes I use, the answer is 10 inch/pounds. And yes, I do have a 1/4 drive suitable device.
I am not prepared to publicly discuss how often it has ever been used, but the "official answer" is: "Whenever required by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the CARs, the CASRs, the CAOs, MOS, ADs and Manufacturer's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness for the part or component.
Bend alot,
The current calibration certificate should be "affixed" (don't you love that word affixed) to the torque device and must be legible, and the paper receipt from the CASA approved certifier must be held on file ---- more or less the quote from our local mob.
That is why most of us have two, the one we actually use, and the pristine pretty one for the audit.
In fact, a good mate of mine has been calibrating torque devices for years.
For the sort of stuff we use, he supplies a metallic self adhesive label (like a bit of speedtape) with the expiry date and ref. number stamped into the label, and the necessary CASA approved "return to service" paper document.
And where would you use a crows foot instead of a socket (including a cutout socket) but if you do, make the appropriate calculation to set the torque wrench, to account for the difference/distance between the center-line of the stud and the "square" hole. In other words, just as you do torquing prop. bolts. You do use a proper tool with a known extension lever dimension, when fitting props, of course?? Don't you??
Tootle Pip!!