Views on CASA Schedule 5
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB and MSB do not have to be done under sched 5 if they are not listed in the LBS. An AWB is not LAW it is not an AD. If the AD states an SB etc it has to be done. If you run a Manufactures SOM then you MUST comply with the SB etc an ADs.
Its all in the LBS
cheers
Its all in the LBS
cheers
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Schedule 5, Part 2, lists the requirements for release to service for annual/100 hour inspection of class B aircraft. It is not the complete list of requirements for continuing airworthiness.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll creamie the problem is casa dose not won't to hold reasonability of it for an aircraft that has a SOM in the M/M it's that simple. As I have said it a minimum of what is looked at. What ever they can wipe there hands off that's what they doing. Sched 5 was and is fine. It was better when the Aust ADs where there to back it up but they slowly been errorded and now we have country of orgin. Like AD hose 5 simple easy to understand and in your face can't argue about it as it was an AD. But no change for change sake. We ended up with a mess.
SB were looked at by CAsa and then made into an Ad if required.
Cheers
SB were looked at by CAsa and then made into an Ad if required.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Clearedtoreenter
Your not on your own there I can assure you. But like I say the check list is the minimum that you look at. Times are changing slowly faster for some slower for others. Most of these aircraft mow are plus 30 years old would you drive a car that old now. The weird thing is that as a lame we looking after your life's we sign all day every day that.
Cheers
Your not on your own there I can assure you. But like I say the check list is the minimum that you look at. Times are changing slowly faster for some slower for others. Most of these aircraft mow are plus 30 years old would you drive a car that old now. The weird thing is that as a lame we looking after your life's we sign all day every day that.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I see is going to happen is outside forces will dictate what your maintenance is done too. This is already happening for Mine oil and gas type work. For smaller aircraft its going to your insurance company that will or wont insurer your aircraft. On the maintenance side of things a lot of work shops arnt insured for an engine to be ran as on- condition and as such they wont issue a M/R . Right or wrong this is the position that I see happening and is happening.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YR, Sadly I think your right.
When a regulator gets so out of touch with reality, I mean even poor old Clint
Can't work it out, and if he can't , nobody can, Others with a vested interest, such as insurance providers, or big business auditors will step in and set the standard.
Whatever ragged remnant of GA remains after the parasites have finished faces that reality, by then CAsA will be irrelevant because our " Industry" will largely exist Offshore anyway.
When a regulator gets so out of touch with reality, I mean even poor old Clint
Can't work it out, and if he can't , nobody can, Others with a vested interest, such as insurance providers, or big business auditors will step in and set the standard.
Whatever ragged remnant of GA remains after the parasites have finished faces that reality, by then CAsA will be irrelevant because our " Industry" will largely exist Offshore anyway.
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
I think most maintenance is done by looking at the aircraft, looking methodically at every functional component of the aircraft and fixing what is deficient.
once that is done the pens retire to the office, drag out the paperwork and then go through the items one by one.
done that, sign.
not relevant, cross out and initial.
done that, sign.
etc.
that to me is why flavour of the maintenance paperwork is almost irrelevant.
the aeroplane itself is the actual checklist used.
I have never seen a LAME, even the super diligent ones, ever use the paperwork as the work is being done. the aeroplane in front of them is the checklist, not the paperwork. how else do you keep the grease and oily fingerprints off the paperwork?
CAsA can crap on about this as much as they like because it is irrelevant really.
....although there is a chap here in the west that recently pissed off a CAsA audit enough that he has been declared a not fit and proper person over some paperwork indiscretion and has lost LAME licence, Pilot's Licence and employment. (no aeroplanes were damaged in bring you this message)
once that is done the pens retire to the office, drag out the paperwork and then go through the items one by one.
done that, sign.
not relevant, cross out and initial.
done that, sign.
etc.
that to me is why flavour of the maintenance paperwork is almost irrelevant.
the aeroplane itself is the actual checklist used.
I have never seen a LAME, even the super diligent ones, ever use the paperwork as the work is being done. the aeroplane in front of them is the checklist, not the paperwork. how else do you keep the grease and oily fingerprints off the paperwork?
CAsA can crap on about this as much as they like because it is irrelevant really.
....although there is a chap here in the west that recently pissed off a CAsA audit enough that he has been declared a not fit and proper person over some paperwork indiscretion and has lost LAME licence, Pilot's Licence and employment. (no aeroplanes were damaged in bring you this message)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"although there is a chap here in the west that recently pissed off a CAsA audit enough that he has been declared a not fit and proper person over some paperwork indiscretion and has lost LAME licence, Pilot's Licence and employment."
Probably decided by some ex RAAF fitter or Baggage handler or maybe an industry reject who wouldn't know a spanner from a hammer.
Sad aint it, as CAsA slowly weed out the competent LAME's, they are turning maintenance into a box ticking exercise much like flying training has become.
I guess the current Philosophy is the more boxes to tick the safer the outcome.
I have been told Class B maintenance is actually better than class A because LAME's get more time to actually maintain the aircraft rather than sit in the office putting ticks in boxes.
Oh well, once the final nail is nailed, them that can afford it will probably turn to New Zealand to get their Kiwi registered aircraft maintained to a safer standard.
Probably decided by some ex RAAF fitter or Baggage handler or maybe an industry reject who wouldn't know a spanner from a hammer.
Sad aint it, as CAsA slowly weed out the competent LAME's, they are turning maintenance into a box ticking exercise much like flying training has become.
I guess the current Philosophy is the more boxes to tick the safer the outcome.
I have been told Class B maintenance is actually better than class A because LAME's get more time to actually maintain the aircraft rather than sit in the office putting ticks in boxes.
Oh well, once the final nail is nailed, them that can afford it will probably turn to New Zealand to get their Kiwi registered aircraft maintained to a safer standard.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dubbleyew-eight
Yep no need to look a shed 5 paper work. I said before it's the minimum we look at. The aircraft are the sheets. You look you see you investigate. If you see some thing that's not right you look deeper. That's why we have additional work sheets.
It's called common sense even though the goody goodys are saying there no such thing we'll there is and more so gained with experience. Now of course if you looking at a aircraft you haven't worked on before and it a som paper work you look
The aircraft can't fly till the paper work excreeds the mtow of the aircraft.
Cheers
Yep no need to look a shed 5 paper work. I said before it's the minimum we look at. The aircraft are the sheets. You look you see you investigate. If you see some thing that's not right you look deeper. That's why we have additional work sheets.
It's called common sense even though the goody goodys are saying there no such thing we'll there is and more so gained with experience. Now of course if you looking at a aircraft you haven't worked on before and it a som paper work you look
The aircraft can't fly till the paper work excreeds the mtow of the aircraft.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YR, never a truer word was spoken, and I speak from experience.
Our incompetent regulator is culling experienced, competent engineers and replacing them with Box tickers.
I could very well be dead today, or one of my pilots, or worse one of our customers, but for the eagle eye of experience who spotted something that could have resulted in the ass falling off the airplane, no way I would have seen it, I'm just a pilot, he did, he's an engineer, I do my thing, fly them and try not to break them, he does his thing and covers my ass.
God bless all engineers, our guardian angels!! God's curse on CAsA who's corruption will eventually kill a lot of people.
Our incompetent regulator is culling experienced, competent engineers and replacing them with Box tickers.
I could very well be dead today, or one of my pilots, or worse one of our customers, but for the eagle eye of experience who spotted something that could have resulted in the ass falling off the airplane, no way I would have seen it, I'm just a pilot, he did, he's an engineer, I do my thing, fly them and try not to break them, he does his thing and covers my ass.
God bless all engineers, our guardian angels!! God's curse on CAsA who's corruption will eventually kill a lot of people.
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
clinton I don't stuff around with paperwork.
ask yourself this though.
if an aeroplane has , say, 172 components to it. how can a paperwork system by any flavour do anything other than trace that the 172 components were checked for fitness for flight?
just bye the bye I replaced my oil hoses in the last annual.
they were on the aircraft for about 20 years.
hoses were made from aeroquip 303-6.
there was not one identifiable deterioration in them. the inner liners were sound and undamaged. the hoses were still supple and flexible.
now replaced with the stratoflex equivalent hose and good for another 20 years.
ask yourself this though.
if an aeroplane has , say, 172 components to it. how can a paperwork system by any flavour do anything other than trace that the 172 components were checked for fitness for flight?
just bye the bye I replaced my oil hoses in the last annual.
they were on the aircraft for about 20 years.
hoses were made from aeroquip 303-6.
there was not one identifiable deterioration in them. the inner liners were sound and undamaged. the hoses were still supple and flexible.
now replaced with the stratoflex equivalent hose and good for another 20 years.
If you run a Manufactures SOM then you MUST comply with the SB
Not so, many OEM SBs are not airworthiness items.
To incorporate them or not is a matter for the registered operator. Of course, and SB that an NAA makes an AD is a different matter. If a LBS says that all OEM SBs have to be carried out, that LBS is NOT enforceable, in that respect.
What many of you "just don't get" is that the OEM MM forms part of the acceptable ( CASA Approved) data that must be used to complete Schedule 5, but is not the only data required.
The other thing that many of you "don't get" is that FAA certified light aircraft assume that they will be maintained to FAR 43 Appendix D (which is the same as Schedule 5, almost) and the OEM MM does not include in the MM a lot of information contained in various FAA ACs related to continuing airworthiness.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes the LBS dictates what you have to do ive been saying that. If you run the Manufactures SOM it says that you must do the SBs. The SB will then give you the option of doing it or not unless its a MSB.
The wording has also change in the sched 5 as well and maybe you need to read that as well.
Also when you change your LBS it has to be sent to CASA and if its not good enough it wont be approved .Also this is Aust it don't mean a dame what the USA do or don't do
Cheers
The wording has also change in the sched 5 as well and maybe you need to read that as well.
Also when you change your LBS it has to be sent to CASA and if its not good enough it wont be approved .Also this is Aust it don't mean a dame what the USA do or don't do
Cheers
Last edited by yr right; 16th May 2014 at 09:36. Reason: added
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
clinton be careful not to mix private owner category B aircraft maintenance with commercial category A maintenance.
I never comment on cat A maintenance.
I never comment on cat A maintenance.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me make this perfectly clear
The Log Book Statement on an Australian Register Aircraft is WHAT the aircraft must be maintained and controlled too period. There is NO room to move on this period.
At the end of a service check it then written on the M/R {every serviceable aircraft has an M/R] what it is maintained to.
This is the same for class A or B
The main difference between A and B is a class A MUST have maintenance carried out IAW with a SOM. A SOM dose NOT mean it has to be manufactures BUT it cant be any less than manufactures.
Sched 5 now states this
6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional
I live and breath this every day as do all LAME this is our bread and butter so to speak BTW you stil not answered my question of when did you last certified for work you carried out or issue an M/R or even talk to an AWI me two days ago.
Now Clinton please tell me im incorrect in the above statements. I and everyone would be please if you can put as all at ease or the fact im right. Or has it some what silenced your tongue because im a dill and you cant bear to say im correct. Your inability to answer will show us all.
Cheers
The Log Book Statement on an Australian Register Aircraft is WHAT the aircraft must be maintained and controlled too period. There is NO room to move on this period.
At the end of a service check it then written on the M/R {every serviceable aircraft has an M/R] what it is maintained to.
This is the same for class A or B
The main difference between A and B is a class A MUST have maintenance carried out IAW with a SOM. A SOM dose NOT mean it has to be manufactures BUT it cant be any less than manufactures.
Sched 5 now states this
6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional
I live and breath this every day as do all LAME this is our bread and butter so to speak BTW you stil not answered my question of when did you last certified for work you carried out or issue an M/R or even talk to an AWI me two days ago.
Now Clinton please tell me im incorrect in the above statements. I and everyone would be please if you can put as all at ease or the fact im right. Or has it some what silenced your tongue because im a dill and you cant bear to say im correct. Your inability to answer will show us all.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case, would you buy a 20 year old 'private' aircraft with no airframe, engine or prop logbooks?
I can answer that. Only a fool would how ever you can but you have to have every thing O/H and as say it was a rare aircraft then a full restro
.
I rejected a mitly million $ aircraft sale because the prop S# weren't the same as the log books. If we had of brought it back to Aust we would have had to install new props.
Cheers
I can answer that. Only a fool would how ever you can but you have to have every thing O/H and as say it was a rare aircraft then a full restro
.
I rejected a mitly million $ aircraft sale because the prop S# weren't the same as the log books. If we had of brought it back to Aust we would have had to install new props.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading all this highlights to me just how something that was considered difficult and onerous, (like four year major inspections with intervals of minor inspections), evolved into something that appeared simple, safe and straightforward, (like 100 hour/annual inspections), could be corrupted into something lacking understanding of function, desire, result and design that results in prohibitive costs that further drives the plethora of nails in the GA coffin.
Obviously this country needs more Lawyers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uirC4Yfb8A
Obviously this country needs more Lawyers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uirC4Yfb8A