Cost of 100 hourly's
Connedrod,
Everything I have said about yellow metal valve caps means yellow metal valve caps, not valve inserts.
That you haven't read the Manufacturer's Instructions only means that you haven't read them, nothing more.
As for my remarks on CASA's interpretation of Schedule 8 maintenance, it is entirely consistent with CASA "educational" publications (CD and paper) outlining responsibilities and limitations when doing Schedule 8 maintenance, including the CASA presentations at the occasional CASA/Airservices "Aviation Safety" (whatever they are actually called) traveling roadshow, airshows and the like.
As to IFR and batteries, at all times I have been referring to Schedule 8 maintenance, not under any other Schedule. The issue of fully charging a new battery is, again, Manufacturer's Instructions (howsoever described) for every battery maker I have ever used.
More to the point, they are entirely consistent with CASA compliance and enforcement action, and penalties imposed, of which I am all too aware, in at least three states.
And before you make any silly comments, the enforcement actions were not against me, or any company or aircraft in which I might have or had an interest.
Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes, don't start me.
That this has not been your personal experience or within your level of knowledge is of no relevance to the facts.
Read Schedule 5 in its entirety.
Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.
Tootle pip!!
Everything I have said about yellow metal valve caps means yellow metal valve caps, not valve inserts.
That you haven't read the Manufacturer's Instructions only means that you haven't read them, nothing more.
As for my remarks on CASA's interpretation of Schedule 8 maintenance, it is entirely consistent with CASA "educational" publications (CD and paper) outlining responsibilities and limitations when doing Schedule 8 maintenance, including the CASA presentations at the occasional CASA/Airservices "Aviation Safety" (whatever they are actually called) traveling roadshow, airshows and the like.
As to IFR and batteries, at all times I have been referring to Schedule 8 maintenance, not under any other Schedule. The issue of fully charging a new battery is, again, Manufacturer's Instructions (howsoever described) for every battery maker I have ever used.
More to the point, they are entirely consistent with CASA compliance and enforcement action, and penalties imposed, of which I am all too aware, in at least three states.
And before you make any silly comments, the enforcement actions were not against me, or any company or aircraft in which I might have or had an interest.
Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes, don't start me.
That this has not been your personal experience or within your level of knowledge is of no relevance to the facts.
How after an accident in Victoria a jugde (sic) said that the issue of an m/r means nothing will go wrong with the aircraft
Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[I]More to the point, they are entirely consistent with CASA compliance and enforcement action, and penalties imposed, of which I am all too
Read Schedule 5 in its entirety.
Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.
Tootle pip!![/QUOTE]
For a start sched 5 is not the the instrument for a M/r
Its now 42h formly 42ze
Shed 5 is tne instrument to provide a maintenance inspection program approved from casa.
The it dose how ever only provide a maximum service interval of 12month and 100 hours.
In the shed 8 for pilots a comment is made.
The aircrcraft SHOULD be serviceable for the preiod og the M /R. This comment is not made in the legislature requirements in 42h. This is a flipent coment and should be removed. Not one person that issues any aircraft can give that and say it not going to have an in service problem.
Read Schedule 5 in its entirety.
Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.
Tootle pip!![/QUOTE]
For a start sched 5 is not the the instrument for a M/r
Its now 42h formly 42ze
Shed 5 is tne instrument to provide a maintenance inspection program approved from casa.
The it dose how ever only provide a maximum service interval of 12month and 100 hours.
In the shed 8 for pilots a comment is made.
The aircrcraft SHOULD be serviceable for the preiod og the M /R. This comment is not made in the legislature requirements in 42h. This is a flipent coment and should be removed. Not one person that issues any aircraft can give that and say it not going to have an in service problem.
This directly from CAsA Schedule 5
6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.
6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes,
Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.
But then where is your calibrated tooling and maintenance manual cause you will have them on hand wont you.
As for casa.
As a maintenance shop we have regular aduits. We pass an aduit. Then for an unrelated reason we have another aduit specfic to one thing. We have our process manual we we do our work too. Its approved. Just re approved. These clowns say its wrong. Wtf. When asked why its wrong. We have to go back to the office and tell you after we look at it. I said. Your the regulatorybroad you should know the answer now. Thet could answer. Their only reply was yes we here this all the time. They make up their own regs to suit themselves. So for someone to say that you cant jack a wheel is flase. Read shed 8. Black and white.
Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.
But then where is your calibrated tooling and maintenance manual cause you will have them on hand wont you.
As for casa.
As a maintenance shop we have regular aduits. We pass an aduit. Then for an unrelated reason we have another aduit specfic to one thing. We have our process manual we we do our work too. Its approved. Just re approved. These clowns say its wrong. Wtf. When asked why its wrong. We have to go back to the office and tell you after we look at it. I said. Your the regulatorybroad you should know the answer now. Thet could answer. Their only reply was yes we here this all the time. They make up their own regs to suit themselves. So for someone to say that you cant jack a wheel is flase. Read shed 8. Black and white.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes,
Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.
Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.
It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, help me follow this "jacking" issue. I've been seeing this for several posts now, and it seems like I'm missing some context, or something.
It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?
It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?
So, help me follow this "jacking" issue. I've been seeing this for several posts now, and it seems like I'm missing some context, or something.
It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?
It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wording cut and pasted directly out of out of Schedule 8
Schedule 8—Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)
Part 1—Maintenance on Class B aircraft other than balloons
1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etc
Schedule 8—Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)
Part 1—Maintenance on Class B aircraft other than balloons
1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etc
1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etc
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etc
Although Schedule 8 is the usual appallingly bad drafting - the limitation at the end of 1 could be read as implicitly not applying to e.g. 2 or 3, so that its OK to completely jack the aircraft if you’re “servicing landing gear wheel bearings” but not if you’re removing or installing tyres - I think you’ll find that the regulator takes the view that in no circumstances does Schedule 8 authorise the “complete” jacking of an aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie.
Although Schedule 8 is the usual appallingly bad drafting - the limitation at the end of 1 could be read as implicitly not applying to e.g. 2 or 3, so that its OK to completely jack the aircraft if you’re “servicing landing gear wheel bearings” but not if you’re removing or installing tyres - I think you’ll find that the regulator takes the view that in no circumstances does Schedule 8 authorise the “complete” jacking of an aircraft.
Although Schedule 8 is the usual appallingly bad drafting - the limitation at the end of 1 could be read as implicitly not applying to e.g. 2 or 3, so that its OK to completely jack the aircraft if you’re “servicing landing gear wheel bearings” but not if you’re removing or installing tyres - I think you’ll find that the regulator takes the view that in no circumstances does Schedule 8 authorise the “complete” jacking of an aircraft.
Indeed. My response, to which you responded “WTF????I?”, was to A Squared’s question.
Complete jacking would be dangerously criminal.
Complete jacking would be dangerously criminal.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so.
And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.
My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself.
And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.
My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so apparently, I wasn't missing any context, that CASA really does have regulations prohibiting this.
All I can say is your regulatory agency is completely out of control and has lost all perspective.
Ho-Leee Crap!!!!!. I'm gonna stop complaining about the FAA!!!!
All I can say is your regulatory agency is completely out of control and has lost all perspective.
Ho-Leee Crap!!!!!. I'm gonna stop complaining about the FAA!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so.
And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.
My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself.
And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.
My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself.
At last we all can agree on something you have said that is correct and true.
Even when faced with what the regs say in black and white you still refuse to except the turth and argue your point of view.
You havent answered a simple question of how many poeple you have examined for shed 8 approved maintenance.
One can emagine with when you pass to the other side god and the devil will be arguing on who will take you. Each will be asking the other to have you. You suffering from the big Q syndrome. Ie we better than everyone else. I do believe that rehap can fix this.
Toot toot
If you do maintenance on an aircraft and you’re not authorised to do it, you’re a dangerous criminal.
There’s a reg that sets out what maintenance various classes of people are authorised to do.
Pilots of class B aircraft (essentially aircraft that aren’t certified in the Transport category or used in RPT) are authorised to do the maintenance set out in a schedule to the regulations (Schedule 8).
If the maintenance isn’t in Schedule 8, a pilot is not authorised to do it (unless separately authorised as e.g licensed maintenance engineer).
Complete jacking of an aircraft isn’t in Schedule 8.
Therefore, any pilot who carries out a complete jacking of an aircraft is a dangerous criminal. That includes private pilots jacking their own aircraft on their own private premises. (However, I should note: There may be different (more ‘relaxed’) rules for Experimental aircraft.)
The equivalent to Schedule 8 in the FARs is paragraph (c) of Appendix A to FAR 43. I don’t see any prohibition on complete jacking of aircraft. The overarching restriction on the list of maintenance tasks is that the task must not “involve complex assembly operations”.
This is a manifestation of why GA in Australia is so much healthier and safer than in the USA.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For pilot-performed maintenance CASA’s logic goes something like this:
If you do maintenance on an aircraft and you’re not authorised to do it, you’re a dangerous criminal.
There’s a reg that sets out what maintenance various classes of people are authorised to do.
Pilots of class B aircraft (essentially aircraft that aren’t certified in the Transport category or used in RPT) are authorised to do the maintenance set out in a schedule to the regulations (Schedule 8).
If the maintenance isn’t in Schedule 8, a pilot is not authorised to do it (unless separately authorised as e.g licensed maintenance engineer).
Complete jacking of an aircraft isn’t in Schedule 8.
Therefore, any pilot who carries out a complete jacking of an aircraft is a dangerous criminal. That includes private pilots jacking their own aircraft on their own private premises. (However, I should note: There may be different (more ‘relaxed’) rules for Experimental aircraft.)
The equivalent to Schedule 8 in the FARs is paragraph (c) of Appendix A to FAR 43. I don’t see any prohibition on complete jacking of aircraft. The overarching restriction on the list of maintenance tasks is that the task must not “involve complex assembly operations”.
This is a manifestation of why GA in Australia is so much healthier and safer than in the USA.
If you do maintenance on an aircraft and you’re not authorised to do it, you’re a dangerous criminal.
There’s a reg that sets out what maintenance various classes of people are authorised to do.
Pilots of class B aircraft (essentially aircraft that aren’t certified in the Transport category or used in RPT) are authorised to do the maintenance set out in a schedule to the regulations (Schedule 8).
If the maintenance isn’t in Schedule 8, a pilot is not authorised to do it (unless separately authorised as e.g licensed maintenance engineer).
Complete jacking of an aircraft isn’t in Schedule 8.
Therefore, any pilot who carries out a complete jacking of an aircraft is a dangerous criminal. That includes private pilots jacking their own aircraft on their own private premises. (However, I should note: There may be different (more ‘relaxed’) rules for Experimental aircraft.)
The equivalent to Schedule 8 in the FARs is paragraph (c) of Appendix A to FAR 43. I don’t see any prohibition on complete jacking of aircraft. The overarching restriction on the list of maintenance tasks is that the task must not “involve complex assembly operations”.
This is a manifestation of why GA in Australia is so much healthier and safer than in the USA.
The part I'm having a tough time with is WTF CASA think's it's important that I don't put my plane up on two jacks at the same time. If it falls off, well, that's my own airplane I just damaged, isn't it?
So, if I were changing tires on my 180, and I lifted the entire airplane using an overhead hoist and the airplane's lifting rings, (actually the best way to lift a 180/185, they're kind of squirrly to jack with their long spring steel landing gear legs) would I be a dangerous criminal?
Of course you’d be a dangerous criminal, as that’s not on the list in Schedule 8.
It makes more sense if you understand that CASA is on a mission to save you and your aircraft from yourself.
It makes more sense if you understand that CASA is on a mission to save you and your aircraft from yourself.