Cost of 100 hourly's
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=LeadSled;9967545]Conned Rod,
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!!
As ive said to bob. You believe in what you wish. I dont have a thing to prove to yourself.
Ive just done 4 guys and have another 2 in thext few weeks. However i might have to tell them that its all a waste because you say so. Ill also call the the local office and tell them as well
I suggest your time would be better in understanding what is written in shed 8 in particular how to jack an aircraft and requirements in doing. Clearly you do not understand this its number 1 on the list.
Toot toot ...
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!!
As ive said to bob. You believe in what you wish. I dont have a thing to prove to yourself.
Ive just done 4 guys and have another 2 in thext few weeks. However i might have to tell them that its all a waste because you say so. Ill also call the the local office and tell them as well
I suggest your time would be better in understanding what is written in shed 8 in particular how to jack an aircraft and requirements in doing. Clearly you do not understand this its number 1 on the list.
Toot toot ...
It is curious that I have been told by a LAME, a very good friend of mine that in order to legally do pilot maintenance on my aircraft I need to do it in conjunction with a maintenance organisation where I have done a basic course and have my name on a list stating such.
I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hangar of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.
I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hangar of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is curious that I have been told by a LAME, a very good friend of mine that in order to legally do pilot maintenance on my aircraft I need to do it in conjunction with a maintenance organisation where I have done a basic course and have my name on a list stating such.
I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hangar of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.
I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hangar of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.
Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
The written word is very clear.
The main problem is
Awi a says 1
Awi b says 2
Awi c says 3
Awi d says 1
Awi e says 2
Ive had aduit meeting were this has happened at the same table at the same time in the same room.
Gerry ill give you this.
At least you are consistent. You never place anything on this fourm that is of any value at all. Your like a little yap yap dog that just has a winny bark and never shuts the f#@& up.
As ive said before i live this day in day out. One would think that if i had a problem it would have shown its self up by now.
Pilots are consistent in that you cant tell them anything.
Toot toot
Gerry ill give you this.
At least you are consistent. You never place anything on this fourm that is of any value at all. Your like a little yap yap dog that just has a winny bark and never shuts the f#@& up.
As ive said before i live this day in day out. One would think that if i had a problem it would have shown its self up by now.
Pilots are consistent in that you cant tell them anything.
Toot toot
At least you are consistent. You never place anything on this fourm that is of any value at all. Your like a little yap yap dog that just has a winny bark and never shuts the f#@& up.
As ive said before i live this day in day out. One would think that if i had a problem it would have shown its self up by now.
Pilots are consistent in that you cant tell them anything.
Toot toot
Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.
AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.
Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.
Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.
This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.
If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.
Actually servicing does form part of the Instructions for continued airworthiness for both FAR 23 and 25 - it is an entire chapter (usually chapter 2) of the Maintenance Manual and contains among other things windscreen cleaning procedures. A quick look through some of my outdated manuals reveals it has been in Cessna MM since at least 1960 and piper since 1964. Not sure how long it is since your read an MM.
In addition as a lawyer I suggest you should bone up on CAR2A:
For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the maintenance data are: (a) requirements in:
(i) regulations 42U, 42W, 42X, 42Y, 42Z and 42ZA or in instruments made under those regulations; and
(ii) directions (however described) made under an airworthiness directive or under regulation 25, 38 or 44;
being requirements that specify how maintenance on aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials is to be carried out; and
(b) specifications of how maintenance on an aircraft, aircraft component or aircraft material is to be carried out, in documents or designs approved under another provision of these Regulations; and
(c) instructions, issued by the manufacturers of aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials, that specify how maintenance on the aircraft, components or materials is to be carried out; and
(d) instructions, issued by the designers of modifications of aircraft or aircraft components, that specify how maintenance on the aircraft or components is to be carried out; and
(e) any other instructions, approved by CASA under subregulation (4) for the purposes of this paragraph, relating to how maintenance on aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials is to be carried out.
You would be hard pressed to argue that servicing or maintenance chapter of the POH/AFM and its associated supplements did not fit under the definition of "approved maintenance data" in (c) and (d).
You would be hard pressed to argue that servicing or maintenance chapter of the POH/AFM and its associated supplements did not fit under the definition of "approved maintenance data" in (c) and (d)
In a nutshell, re. "servicing",that is what counsel for CASA have argued, and in the same context in the AAT have differentiated between "servicing" in US paperwork, and the fact that, unlike the US, effectively everything that is done here, post manufacture, is "maintenance".
In the same context, in US, maintenance is to acceptable data, plenty of guidance material to A&P, IA etc., whereas, as you can see from CAR 2A, here it is all "approved" data, the difference is not trivial.
Then CASA turns handstands to try and define "approved", leaving lots of anomalies and "grey" areas, because there is not the US style latitude for on the spot flexibility. And there is the CASA "gotcha" enforcement mentality. As a former Head of CASA OLC said: "Pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet" ---- in my presence.
That something like this leads to time and expense in the AAT and Federal Court (which obviously doesn't include the majority of cases where the poor sods on the receiving end, who surrender, cop the points, pay the fine and sign the Voluntary Enforceable Undertaking, because they have no other practical and/or affordable solution) is a great advertisement for the whole US approach, not just the FARs, but the whole FAA philosophical approach.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Just a further clarification re. the "windscreen wars", CASA persons argued that washing windscreens was not specifically listed in Schedule 8, notwithstanding #24. Re. jacking, again, it was not me arguing for ratbag interpretations of Schedule 8, I was only ever repeating what CASA persons have said at traveling roadshow "safety" presentation, where, re. Schedule 8, it was almost all in the negative, what you can't do, despite the document appearing to say otherwise. Don't shoot the messenger.
Last edited by LeadSled; 25th Nov 2017 at 14:11.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWB 12-1 Issue 2 - Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
AWB 12-1 Issue 2, 17 January 2002
Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
Effectivity
General information
Purpose
The purpose of this AWB is to provide information on the servicing tasks that may be carried out by, but not limited to, the pilot in command.
Background
Feedback to CASA shows some confusion may exist on the difference between servicing and maintenance. CAR 2 of the 1988 Regulations advises in part, that:
'Maintenance means…the doing of any work (including a modification or repair) on the aircraft that may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to person or property…'
'Servicing…means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids…but does not include any work that is maintenance.'
Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.
Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity.
Advice
If the aircraft is used for commercial operations, the operator is to ensure that flight crew are adequately trained to carry out servicing tasks. For private operations, if you do not know how to do these tasks, you should ask an LAME to show you.
When replenishing fluids, you must use only those approved for the particular application.
Servicing Tasks
Refuelling and de-fuelling;Fuel system water drain checks;Replenishment of hydraulic fluid;Replenishment of engine oil;Toilet cleaning;Replenishment of engine coolant;Replenishment of water;Sanitize potable water;Adjustment of tyre pressures;Replenishment of de-icing fluid;Periodic lubrication of components, other than lubrication that is required for the accomplishment of scheduled maintenance, which does not require disassembly of the component, other than removal of non-structural items such as cover plates, cowlings and fairings eg: lubrication of door hinges;Aircraft internal and external cleaning, including windscreen cleaning;Disinfecting of the aircraft;Removal of ice and snow;Application of preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good maintenance practices;Checking aircraft battery electrolyte levels and topping up with distilled water but excluding wet cell nickel-cadmium batteries;Servicing tasks required by the aircraft flight manual or maintenance manual;Towing, parking and mooring including tasks to facilitate these functions eg: quick disconnect and re-connection of torque links; andReplacement or repair of signs and markings.
Note: The servicing of liquid and gaseous oxygen systems is to be carried out only by an appropriately rated LAME.
Last updated: 17 February 2016
Exactly, and "servicing" is not maintenance, in fact it specifically precludes "maintenance", and I am not even going to attempt to list the contradictions, beyond S.3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. It is, in fact, another example of how screwed up our whole aviation legislative framework has become.
I would be interested to know if "servicing" crops up in any regulation (except for a definition), as apposed to advisory material, such as an AWB --- I am not aware of it.
Tootle pip!!
Conned Rod, with your apparent delight in "discovering gotchas" you should apply for an AWI job.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Nov 2017 at 04:21. Reason: minor edit.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie,
Exactly, and "servicing" is not maintenance, in fact it specifically precludes "maintenance", and I am not even going to attempt to list the contradictions.
I would be interested to know if "servicing" crops up in any regulation, as apposed to advisory material, such as an AWB --- I am not aware of it.
Tootle pip!!
Conned Rod, with your apparent delight in "discovering gotchas" you should apply for an AWI job.
Exactly, and "servicing" is not maintenance, in fact it specifically precludes "maintenance", and I am not even going to attempt to list the contradictions.
I would be interested to know if "servicing" crops up in any regulation, as apposed to advisory material, such as an AWB --- I am not aware of it.
Tootle pip!!
Conned Rod, with your apparent delight in "discovering gotchas" you should apply for an AWI job.
No F/W i just know the law and how it applies to maintenance. Something that you clearly dont know as i have previously said.
Its not my fault you given two ears and one mouth. Prehaps you should listen more and speak less.
And stop treating me as some sort of fool which clearly i am not
