Cost of 100 hourly's
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=LeadSled;9966899]Conned Rod,
Again, what on earth are you talking about??
I have never been "REMOVED" from anything, aviation-wise.
Neither, you dopey person, have I suggested that no regulation is required, only that Australian aviation is grossly over-regulated, compared to any comparable country, that CASA seeks to micro-manage the whole aviation sector, and this is a very major factor in the parlous, approaching terminal state of GA in Australia, compared to any comparable country.
And
Bend a lot,
I am aware of what you refer to, but I have never seen a stipulated training course of any kind, to carry out Schedule 8 maintenance. And I listen to the rumblings of various CASA persons from time to time. I am NOT referring to any aircraft maintained under 42ZC(4)(e) home built, to use an inaccurate term. That particular "training course" is, in my opinion, almost a waste of time, and includes entirely irrelevant material, but it is a "nice little earner".
I am not aware of any "CASA Approved" syllabus and process, and, quite frankly, any LAME who signed his name to anything that, in any way, suggests he has determined and approved a satisfactory level of competency for a person whose only formal qualification is he or she is a class person entitled to do Schedule 8 maintenance, that would be putting his head on the chopping block, in terms of potential
This us because your abillity to listen and learn is one of your many failures. Just because you dont know it dosnt mean it dosnt exist and dosnt happen.
Ive had to sign of many pilots in this regrads. So have many lames.
But im guessing in your mind im lieing and making it up.
I do know at this present stage is moves abound to remove shed 8 and no pilot maintenance will be allowed.
As for your comment about a lame doing a 5 year apprenticeship. 12 months to get a bus driver in the seat from the start to the seat. 10 years to get a kid of the street to a lame that can do just about anything. Your comments are one of the reasons that lames are now considered a rare species. At the end of the day poeple like yourself will loose.
Toot toot
Again, what on earth are you talking about??
I have never been "REMOVED" from anything, aviation-wise.
Neither, you dopey person, have I suggested that no regulation is required, only that Australian aviation is grossly over-regulated, compared to any comparable country, that CASA seeks to micro-manage the whole aviation sector, and this is a very major factor in the parlous, approaching terminal state of GA in Australia, compared to any comparable country.
And
Bend a lot,
I am aware of what you refer to, but I have never seen a stipulated training course of any kind, to carry out Schedule 8 maintenance. And I listen to the rumblings of various CASA persons from time to time. I am NOT referring to any aircraft maintained under 42ZC(4)(e) home built, to use an inaccurate term. That particular "training course" is, in my opinion, almost a waste of time, and includes entirely irrelevant material, but it is a "nice little earner".
I am not aware of any "CASA Approved" syllabus and process, and, quite frankly, any LAME who signed his name to anything that, in any way, suggests he has determined and approved a satisfactory level of competency for a person whose only formal qualification is he or she is a class person entitled to do Schedule 8 maintenance, that would be putting his head on the chopping block, in terms of potential
This us because your abillity to listen and learn is one of your many failures. Just because you dont know it dosnt mean it dosnt exist and dosnt happen.
Ive had to sign of many pilots in this regrads. So have many lames.
But im guessing in your mind im lieing and making it up.
I do know at this present stage is moves abound to remove shed 8 and no pilot maintenance will be allowed.
As for your comment about a lame doing a 5 year apprenticeship. 12 months to get a bus driver in the seat from the start to the seat. 10 years to get a kid of the street to a lame that can do just about anything. Your comments are one of the reasons that lames are now considered a rare species. At the end of the day poeple like yourself will loose.
Toot toot
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled.
REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.
REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.
Gee what you think that showing him the regs he will believe you. No never. He say to myself i cant help it if you cant read. So leadie how about you actually reading. Or better still as your are so much more intelligent than us lame and your an engineer of sorts cause you have gone to uni. Why dont you go do the lame exams become a lame and then you can do all your own maintenance tell the world how good you are.
Toot toot
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)
Item 4 ---- is interesting, it was explained to us that this meant what it said, only defective safety wire, ergo replacing those oil filters that have safety wiring are out of the question, because your are installing new safety wire, having replaced the filter. Not replacing anything defective.
Replacing of oil filters is covered by AD/ENG/4 which authorises a pilot to do so (IAW the manual of course) since the manual calls for lockwire the pilot is authorized to lock the filter.
And so it goes on ---- all these tricky bush lawyer interpretations made by people who have the power to make you life very miserable. Like what does "complete jacking" mean?
Interestingly the C172R manual says jacking of both wheels simultaneously using the built in jack pads is not recommended and that standard practice is to jack one wheel at a time.
The pièce de résistance is washing a windscreen, unless something has changed since last time I looked, no light aircraft manufacturer (FAR 23 piston) has published approved data to wash a windscreen, but we had quite a celebrated case here, a while back. The inspector insisted that you could only wash a windscreen by entering a defect (vision obscured??) in the MR, then proceed via the Manufacturer's Instructions, which don't exist, which means a CASR Part 21M(old CAR 35) approval. with lots more rigmarole ---- and it's not on Schedule 8.
Windshield cleaning is covered in the "care and maintenance" section of the POH/AFM and is also in the servicing section of the Maintenance Manual. It usually includes approved products and detailed instructions. This is true for Cessna, Piper, Beech, Mooney, Cirrus, American Champion, Grumman and Partenavia. I cant confirm the rest.
All in the true spirit of making life as difficult and expensive as possible. I have had the occasional spirited discussion with an FAA inspector in years gone by, but with only a couple of exceptions, they have never had an acrimonious "big stick" overtone from the opening words, quite the reverse to the all to common atmosphere here.
The net outcome of all this nonsense is a complete lack of respect for just about anything from CASA, which is a pity, because all the things that are actually important get lost in the piles of garbage.=
And much is done behind locked hangar doors, some of which probably shouldn't be, but will never appear in the aircraft records. The saving grace is the great percentage of owners and pilots are quite sensible, so a real risk arising is always possible, but not all that probable.
May be we should be grateful that CASA at least allows us to refuel our own aircraft, and check the oil??
And I have had multiple occasions, over time, to threaten a LAME with legal proceedings for recovery, for such as signing off an AD that was not done, signing off required maintenance that was not done, and in one case, fitting the wrong model of O-470 to a C-182.
Tootle pip!!
Conned Rod (or whatever) ---- would you like to explain to us all the CASA regulations that require training to do Schedule 8 maintenance, as you have brought the subject up.
Item 4 ---- is interesting, it was explained to us that this meant what it said, only defective safety wire, ergo replacing those oil filters that have safety wiring are out of the question, because your are installing new safety wire, having replaced the filter. Not replacing anything defective.
Replacing of oil filters is covered by AD/ENG/4 which authorises a pilot to do so (IAW the manual of course) since the manual calls for lockwire the pilot is authorized to lock the filter.
And so it goes on ---- all these tricky bush lawyer interpretations made by people who have the power to make you life very miserable. Like what does "complete jacking" mean?
Interestingly the C172R manual says jacking of both wheels simultaneously using the built in jack pads is not recommended and that standard practice is to jack one wheel at a time.
The pièce de résistance is washing a windscreen, unless something has changed since last time I looked, no light aircraft manufacturer (FAR 23 piston) has published approved data to wash a windscreen, but we had quite a celebrated case here, a while back. The inspector insisted that you could only wash a windscreen by entering a defect (vision obscured??) in the MR, then proceed via the Manufacturer's Instructions, which don't exist, which means a CASR Part 21M(old CAR 35) approval. with lots more rigmarole ---- and it's not on Schedule 8.
Windshield cleaning is covered in the "care and maintenance" section of the POH/AFM and is also in the servicing section of the Maintenance Manual. It usually includes approved products and detailed instructions. This is true for Cessna, Piper, Beech, Mooney, Cirrus, American Champion, Grumman and Partenavia. I cant confirm the rest.
All in the true spirit of making life as difficult and expensive as possible. I have had the occasional spirited discussion with an FAA inspector in years gone by, but with only a couple of exceptions, they have never had an acrimonious "big stick" overtone from the opening words, quite the reverse to the all to common atmosphere here.
The net outcome of all this nonsense is a complete lack of respect for just about anything from CASA, which is a pity, because all the things that are actually important get lost in the piles of garbage.=
And much is done behind locked hangar doors, some of which probably shouldn't be, but will never appear in the aircraft records. The saving grace is the great percentage of owners and pilots are quite sensible, so a real risk arising is always possible, but not all that probable.
May be we should be grateful that CASA at least allows us to refuel our own aircraft, and check the oil??
And I have had multiple occasions, over time, to threaten a LAME with legal proceedings for recovery, for such as signing off an AD that was not done, signing off required maintenance that was not done, and in one case, fitting the wrong model of O-470 to a C-182.
Tootle pip!!
Conned Rod (or whatever) ---- would you like to explain to us all the CASA regulations that require training to do Schedule 8 maintenance, as you have brought the subject up.
REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Conned Rod,
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.
Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.
Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?
No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.
Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.
If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.
As for moves to remove Schedule 8 entirely, a certain brand of LAME and a union has been on about that for years, fortunately the tide is in the opposite direction.
But it does raise a very interesting issue, the matter of “rule of law” versus “rule by law”, and if you do not understand the difference, please do some homework:< https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/>
Because aviation law in Australia is all too well recognised as prescriptive in the extreme, complex, convoluted and contradictory, “rule by law” is the order of the day, with “an officer of CASA” all too often "laying down the law", when what is forthcoming is his or her version of what the law should be, but isn’t, a view generated by personal prejudices, but dressed up as “the law”, “CASA requires ------“ etc.
Or, even worse, for years CASA initial training of AWIs in Canberra taught material that was completely contrary to what the law actually said, in quite basic ways, in that case a bit hard to blame individual AWIs. How do I know, because I have sat in and looked and listened.
And the poor sod on the receiving end of this treatment often has little option by to comply, they don't know what "the law" is, and because of the “asymmetric power imbalance”, ie; vague or so not so vague threats of what will happen in the event of non-compliance ----- generally a livelihood threatened by an “aggressive audit” or something similar. And, sadly, these threats are very real.
Or there is the one who is all too happy to comply, such is their jaundiced view of "owner or registered operators" who are actually responsible for completion of maintenance, not the LAME. That is where I expect to hear " CASA requires ----" or "CASA does not permit owners to supply their own parts".
Interestingly, it was at this time that the CAA legal department had come up with the concept that an aircraft release to service (Maintenance Release in Australia) would deem an aircraft serviceable for the period of such release, they were told in no uncertain terms that we would no longer release aircraft if that was to be the ruling.
2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.
Sadly, there have been some significant prosecutions of LAMEs based on 2.7, the worst (to my knowledge) involving a fatal some 80 hours into the “new” MR.
You will not find anything like that in FAR 43 Appendix D, from which Schedule 5 was copied, that is an added “Australianism”.
Lead Balloon, I believe you are correct about AMROBA, such is the memory of a senile old man. But I do remember being at a CAA(prior to CASA) conference in Darwine in 1992 ish when the "new" regulations, at that time, were being discussed. Amongst these was the removal of LAME privileges to carry out 100 hour/annual under the auspices of their own licence. It was told at the time this was as a direct input from the maintenance organisations.
Few things better demonstrate the need for the proper "rules" for regulatory development to be enforced on CASA. These, in brief, require a proper definition of the risk to be mitigated, why a rule, as a last resort is necessary, and proper and genuine benefit/cost justification of the proposed rule.
If you want all the details of how to do it, the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) is the place to start, it just that CASA ignores these guidelines, claiming the Civil Aviation Act effectively prohibits their application.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Nov 2017 at 03:33.
LeadSled.
REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.
REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.
CASA ruling 2/2003 states:
Persons who only carry out maintenance in their capacity as pilots are not
‘maintenance personnel’ within the meaning of CAR 214.
8 Accordingly, CAR 214 does not require an operator to make provision for the instruction of pilots.
So no training is required to conduct pilot maintenance
Folks,
A brief addendum to my last, above: It is a complete solution to the cost of 100 hour/annual inspections for may private aircraft.
If I was to forecast, particularly given the new and quite revolutionary FAR 23, I would expect a considerable push in Australia to adopt the Canadian Owner Maintained C.of A system, which was, after all, an Australian CAA proposal in the first place, picked up by Don Spruston (as in the Forsyth Inquiry) when he was still in Transport Canada. And promptly actioned.
It has been notably successful in giving new life to the bottom end of non-sports aviation, with absolutely no adverse safety outcomes at all.
Because of geographical differences, I think it would be far more widely used in Australia than Canada.
Tootle pip!!
A brief addendum to my last, above: It is a complete solution to the cost of 100 hour/annual inspections for may private aircraft.
If I was to forecast, particularly given the new and quite revolutionary FAR 23, I would expect a considerable push in Australia to adopt the Canadian Owner Maintained C.of A system, which was, after all, an Australian CAA proposal in the first place, picked up by Don Spruston (as in the Forsyth Inquiry) when he was still in Transport Canada. And promptly actioned.
It has been notably successful in giving new life to the bottom end of non-sports aviation, with absolutely no adverse safety outcomes at all.
Because of geographical differences, I think it would be far more widely used in Australia than Canada.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conned Rod,
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.
Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.
Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?
No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.
Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.
If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.
Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.
Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.
Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?
No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.
Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.
If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.
Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
I can’t answer for previous posters, but in my case I’ve delivered plenty of training for pilots on how to change oil and oil filters and how to change/remove/check/refit spark plugs on aircraft piston engines. (My observation is that many pilots are usually able to change a light bulb, without the benefit of my training.)
Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.
My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!
Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.
My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?
Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.
My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!
Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.
My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t answer for previous posters, but in my case I’ve delivered plenty of training for pilots on how to change oil and oil filters and how to change/remove/check/refit spark plugs on aircraft piston engines. (My observation is that many pilots are usually able to change a light bulb, without the benefit of my training.)
Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.
My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!
Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.
My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?
Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.
My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!
Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.
My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?
Yes and thats why you were removed from your position within casa.
Toot toot
Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
What approved forms, give us a reference, what CASA "approval", based on what regulation, and why is it not mentioned in the CAAP for Schedule 8.
De-identify it and post it!!
I didn't say you are "making it up", I am saying: What you are doing has no legal basis, and I am saying you are really sticking your neck out, in terms of legal liability, for purporting to find somebody competent to unstated standards, training delivered under what legal instrument, etc., and what your qualifications are (just being a LAME doesn't cut it) to deliver such training.
Let me put it another way, if I go out tomorrow, and work on my aircraft, something clearly within Schedule 8, and I have never done ANY CASA approved course, which I have not, am I committing and offense, and if so, against what regulation.
Tootle pip!!
PS: And just to remind you again, you have not substantiated your assertions that I was "removed" from something aviation related (or anything else, for that matter)
Or explained your AOPA complaint, or what the heck 200% si is??
OK then, Conned: I’ll front at the AFP HQ here in Canberra and hand myself in.
And there was me thinking that I terminated my contract with CASA, in accordance with the terms of that contract, because I didn’t like the job. For all these years I’ve been in denial about the unsavoury maintenance training controversy. Now, all has been revealed. Well done Conned!
And there was me thinking that I terminated my contract with CASA, in accordance with the terms of that contract, because I didn’t like the job. For all these years I’ve been in denial about the unsavoury maintenance training controversy. Now, all has been revealed. Well done Conned!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private Owner Versus Charter/Airwork Pilot
It would appear that a Private Owner Pilot can do what they (the pilot singular or plural, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) likes, within the constraints of Schedule 8.
A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.
A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.
Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?
Thank you Leadsled for informative interesting posts.
It would appear that a Private Owner Pilot can do what they (the pilot singular or plural, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) likes, within the constraints of Schedule 8.
A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.
A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton
Was humpty dumpty pushed or did he jump. The end was tne same he was removed from the wall. I let you make your own conclusions from that. Some of use know the truth. I did find it amusing you didnt use your ultra ego though.
If the form is approved from casa. Im approved from casa. Then casa approves the from that i have filled in. Then of course its not approved.
This is not a lop course which has no approvals and training by non approved persons.
Big difference.
Toot toot.
Was humpty dumpty pushed or did he jump. The end was tne same he was removed from the wall. I let you make your own conclusions from that. Some of use know the truth. I did find it amusing you didnt use your ultra ego though.
If the form is approved from casa. Im approved from casa. Then casa approves the from that i have filled in. Then of course its not approved.
This is not a lop course which has no approvals and training by non approved persons.
Big difference.
Toot toot.
Where do you guys find the spare time for all this posting for this discussion and others, are you posting while at work or something?
In part because I am stuck at home with a bleedingly obstinate cold, and partly because my views on the subject accord with your handle, I much prefer the truth, the facts, to the alternative.
I have found facts, as far as the facts can be determined, a good starting place, and, of course, sticking with the truth means I don't have to have a good memory.
I can't speak for anybody else.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is i and others work with these regs on a daily basis. Not in an out as we wish. We not fools even if you like to treat us such.
To the point we are exained on av law in regards to maintenance and other.
Toot toot
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob.
As i recall this is the same person that stated that lames filled out the M/R incorrectly. This was strange by someone that by their own admission had never filled one out or certified any job within a check or any category certifications.
Yet even though i average 2 M/R issues a week i have no idea. Come on. Not only that every time we get a casa adult they look at the work packs an the M/R book. But then again i guess they dont know how to do it as well so dismissed the above.
Toot toot
As i recall this is the same person that stated that lames filled out the M/R incorrectly. This was strange by someone that by their own admission had never filled one out or certified any job within a check or any category certifications.
Yet even though i average 2 M/R issues a week i have no idea. Come on. Not only that every time we get a casa adult they look at the work packs an the M/R book. But then again i guess they dont know how to do it as well so dismissed the above.
Toot toot
If the form is approved from casa
No more assertions, show us where the CASA Approved Form can be found on the CASA web site, or is that your little secret with CASA??
In my opinion, given you reluctance to provide any proof, I can only think you are, indeed, making it up. Prove us wrong, produce the proof.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Old mate of mine, quite senior now in CASA "airworthiness" , one of the survivors, really, has never heard of any requirement for CASA mandated training and approval for Schedule 8 training, so maybe it's top secret in CASA??