Views on CASA Schedule 5
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When reading CAR 41, one should also have a quick look at CASR 202.220 and 202.222
CAR 41
41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft
must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the
aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time
included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance
schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft
must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the
aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time
included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance
schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
CASR 202.220 Definitions for Subpart 202.BF
registered operator has the meaning given by regulation 47.100.
registered operator has the meaning given by regulation 47.100.
CASR 202.222 Reference to holder of a certificate of registration
(1) A reference in CAR to the holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft is taken to be a reference to the registered operator of the aircraft.
(1) A reference in CAR to the holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft is taken to be a reference to the registered operator of the aircraft.
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
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
honestly you lot all need to learn how to read.
and not insignificantly you need to understand why there is something in legislation.
here is the quote again with my emphasis in red.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
you fcukwits have not understood that clause at all.
some historical background that may or may not be relevant.
in perth the head of the surf life saving organisation at the time was a member of our club of pilot owners. he tried to get approval for the club members to donate their time with the surf life saving clubs paying the fuel cost to mount shark patrols along the perth beaches.
in perth there is a popular "city and beaches" vfr lane along the coast that many members fly along for the views on a regular basis.
"why not organise them to look out for sharks while they fly?" was the motivator.
CAsA refused to allow private pilots to fly the shark patrols "because of the uncertain nature of the maintenance".
I know all this because I was an alphabet office bearer doing most of the message passing at the time.
so if you understand the import of my red emphasis the paragraph means something entirely different from what you have been blathering on about.
btw W8 does NOT WORK FOR CAsA.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you fcukwits have not understood that clause at all.
CASA refused to allow private pilots to fly the shark patrols "because of the uncertain nature of the maintenance".
Last edited by No Hoper; 20th May 2014 at 07:27.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what you have forgotten is that aircraft maintenance is based on preventive maintenance and not just changing parts when things break. Now don't forget that if there is an accident who sues who and how is the sued person going to be. So at the end of the day I don't get paid enough to do **** shoddy work and let stuff go with the option of court over my head and why should any lame have to have that as we'll. basically I'm sorry to say if you can't afford to maintain your aircraft to a level that now more than ever is higher than it's ever been sell it and just hire it.
That's the bigger peoplem now being able to afford everything and sadly most people can't
Cheers
That's the bigger peoplem now being able to afford everything and sadly most people can't
Cheers
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 service my dry vac pump myself. truly I do.
in 10 years it hasn't shown any wear at all.
I did get a guilty feeling once about servicing my vac pump and making a few new parts in it so I bought an unmodified yellow tagged one and put it on the aircraft.
it failed in exactly the same way as the first one. so I made the necessary replacement parts for that one as well. while I was doing this I put the original one back into service.
I love dry vac pumps. they are a nifty little device. with my periodic servicing my two dry vac pumps will most assuredly do me for the rest of my life.
....I know, not what you wanted to hear
in 10 years it hasn't shown any wear at all.
I did get a guilty feeling once about servicing my vac pump and making a few new parts in it so I bought an unmodified yellow tagged one and put it on the aircraft.
it failed in exactly the same way as the first one. so I made the necessary replacement parts for that one as well. while I was doing this I put the original one back into service.
I love dry vac pumps. they are a nifty little device. with my periodic servicing my two dry vac pumps will most assuredly do me for the rest of my life.
....I know, not what you wanted to hear
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton,
Why do you say that CAR 41 doesn't require components to be maintained in accordance with OEM of aircraft or component. I see no ambiguity
W8 has a novel method of getting around a simple maintenance task, by carrying out a complex dismantling, repair and reassembly of a carbon vaned pump.
WOuld this not be a higher risk factor of human error?
What does your MRO think of your maintenance, or are you certifying for maintenance done?
It is above my pay level to dwell on the moral and ethical issues of changing or not changing a Vac pump. To be released on an MR this component has to be maintained IAW OEM - no further corrospondence entered into.
Why do you say that CAR 41 doesn't require components to be maintained in accordance with OEM of aircraft or component. I see no ambiguity
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
WOuld this not be a higher risk factor of human error?
What does your MRO think of your maintenance, or are you certifying for maintenance done?
It is above my pay level to dwell on the moral and ethical issues of changing or not changing a Vac pump. To be released on an MR this component has to be maintained IAW OEM - no further corrospondence entered into.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
….getting…sucked…back….into….vortex….of….pointless….circular ity …and Australian GA....aarrrggghh...
Schedule 5 is a maintenance schedule in terms of CAR 41. Indeed, it’s “the CASA maintenance schedule”.
That’s the point.
The perpetual confusion is about whether Schedule 5 mandates the replacement/overhaul of components at the times provided in the MMM. The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...
NO BUT THE COURTS DECIDE AND ALREADY HAVE YOU MUST DO IT .
Why should it be a lame make the decision an have to were the damage to his hers lic and job. Simple answer is the owner says no I don't wont it done and signs the log book to say that or you close the machine and push it out side and let someone else do it.
Cheers
Schedule 5 is a maintenance schedule in terms of CAR 41. Indeed, it’s “the CASA maintenance schedule”.
That’s the point.
The perpetual confusion is about whether Schedule 5 mandates the replacement/overhaul of components at the times provided in the MMM. The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...
NO BUT THE COURTS DECIDE AND ALREADY HAVE YOU MUST DO IT .
Why should it be a lame make the decision an have to were the damage to his hers lic and job. Simple answer is the owner says no I don't wont it done and signs the log book to say that or you close the machine and push it out side and let someone else do it.
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
For those who have not read this thread, I can assume they have been, in the past, mis-informed, but those that have now done so, are un-informed. (apologies to Mark Twain for bastardising his quote).
I concur with LeadSled and Creampuff. Perhaps their offerings should be heeded. Both are aware of my intimate knowledge of schedule 4, as it was then, and how something simple became so convoluted and subsequently mutated into something that nobody fully understands and drives normal people to despair.
And while this fire burns, Nero fiddles!
I concur with LeadSled and Creampuff. Perhaps their offerings should be heeded. Both are aware of my intimate knowledge of schedule 4, as it was then, and how something simple became so convoluted and subsequently mutated into something that nobody fully understands and drives normal people to despair.
And while this fire burns, Nero fiddles!
The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton,
You either have the English Comprehension of a dead ferret or are being purposely obtuse.
The CAR states emphatically that component maintenance is to be included.
You either have the English Comprehension of a dead ferret or are being purposely obtuse.
The CAR states emphatically that component maintenance is to be included.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To coin a famous former CASA Lawyer. The CAR says what it means and means what it says.
And a CAAP is just a magazine article.
If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal.
If in doubt refer above.
And a CAAP is just a magazine article.
If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal.
If in doubt refer above.
The CAR says what it means and means what it says.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal
And who is left holding the bill ?
And why should that person have too ?
Because some owner dosnt wont it done, because they think it dose not have to our because they cant afford to or what ever reason, we will pass it on to maintenance org or lame she be right then.
Cheers
And who is left holding the bill ?
And why should that person have too ?
Because some owner dosnt wont it done, because they think it dose not have to our because they cant afford to or what ever reason, we will pass it on to maintenance org or lame she be right then.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it stands now even if you choose not to believe it you have to SB and life limited component's as per the M/M.
More and more shops are demanding this as they are forced to by CASA its not the shop its Casa and more importantly will be your insurance policy will be U/S if you don't but then you try and sue the shop but they have a signed letter stating your the owner and you didn't wont them done.
There is nothing wrong with sched 5. As ive said its a victim of its own success and now casa are bring it back into line it was fine when it was supported by the Aust ADs but now they gone or going.
So now you will have to run what the manufacturer wonted, you got away with it for how long now.
At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them. And an on condition engine MUST have its component o/h at there correct time as well as they are NOT on condition only the core of the engine is
Its time you all stepped up to the mark the time has come its not 1990 any more sorry
Cheers
More and more shops are demanding this as they are forced to by CASA its not the shop its Casa and more importantly will be your insurance policy will be U/S if you don't but then you try and sue the shop but they have a signed letter stating your the owner and you didn't wont them done.
There is nothing wrong with sched 5. As ive said its a victim of its own success and now casa are bring it back into line it was fine when it was supported by the Aust ADs but now they gone or going.
So now you will have to run what the manufacturer wonted, you got away with it for how long now.
At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them. And an on condition engine MUST have its component o/h at there correct time as well as they are NOT on condition only the core of the engine is
Its time you all stepped up to the mark the time has come its not 1990 any more sorry
Cheers
At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them
More urban myths.
During a previous period of controversy over AD/ENG/4, which was being stoutly opposed by a number of maintenance providers, ( all on SAFETY grounds, of course, what happens in the rest of the world will not work in Australia) on the basis that their English comprehension did not extend to understanding the difference between Manufacturer's RECOMMENDED TBO, and the somewhat shorter term, TBO, "recommended" being a very long word, there was considerable effort made to rope in the various insurers.
A well known national representative organisation approached ALL the then providers of Hangar Keepers policies, and quizzed them about placing limitations on policies re. releasing aircraft that had engines over Manufacturers RECOMMENDED TBO. ie: the insurance underwriter placing a limitation on a policyholder using AD/ENG/4 on behalf of a Registered Operator customer.
The short answer was NO!. They all said that CASA requirements (however expressed) had to be complied with, that was it. In fact, in this area, they were reluctant to place custom conditions on individual policies at the request of the buyer of the policy.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee lead you must have a different shop to the rest off us.
One of the things is if they won't to release an engine on condition it is the lame that take the responsabity of that. I for one won't do it and there are a lot of lames that won't ethier. Next is that the word recommend via the court says you must. Casa will not give you a definitionon the word how ever. I have tried.
Cheers
One of the things is if they won't to release an engine on condition it is the lame that take the responsabity of that. I for one won't do it and there are a lot of lames that won't ethier. Next is that the word recommend via the court says you must. Casa will not give you a definitionon the word how ever. I have tried.
Cheers
yr right,
I just stick to the facts, it is as easy as that.
Prove it, show us an excerpt from a policy.
I don't think you even understand that it is the Registered Operator who is ultimately legally responsible for the completion of maintenance and the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, not a/the LAME.
There is no issue with the definition of "manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul", that is simple and plain English and is accepted by the courts.
A reasonably useful working policy in Australian aviation is:
Tootle pip!!
PS: Do you understand that is is legally possible for an aircraft to be "signed out" without the involvement of an AME/LAME anywhere in the process?
I just stick to the facts, it is as easy as that.
One of the things is if they ( who is they, underwriters??)won't to release an engine on condition
I don't think you even understand that it is the Registered Operator who is ultimately legally responsible for the completion of maintenance and the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, not a/the LAME.
There is no issue with the definition of "manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul", that is simple and plain English and is accepted by the courts.
A reasonably useful working policy in Australian aviation is:
"Believe nothing that you hear, and only half what you see"
PS: Do you understand that is is legally possible for an aircraft to be "signed out" without the involvement of an AME/LAME anywhere in the process?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aircraft may be release by someone other than an LAME ONLY IF ALL THE CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN SIGNED ON INSPECTION. SO YES I DO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .
HOW EVER THAT PERSON MUST HOLD AN APPROVAL FROM CASA TO DO IT. HE OR SHE IS ONLY SIGNING TO SAY THAT THE PAPER WORK IS COMPETED AND HOLDS NO APPROVAL TO SIGN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORK SHEETS
Cheers
HOW EVER THAT PERSON MUST HOLD AN APPROVAL FROM CASA TO DO IT. HE OR SHE IS ONLY SIGNING TO SAY THAT THE PAPER WORK IS COMPETED AND HOLDS NO APPROVAL TO SIGN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORK SHEETS
Cheers
yr right,
Once again, as we have come to expect, you avoid the main issue.
Show us an example of where a Hangar Keepers (or similar) insurance policy limits the application of AD/ENG/4 and prohibits the policy holder's staff from signing out an aircraft if an engine is past Manufacturers Recommended TBO.
This nonsense is only an issue in Australia, I am mystified as to why engines in Australia are apparently so mush less reliable, compared to US/CA/NZ etc., that they must be limited to a figure that is a "recommendation", without regard to the service condition of the engine.
Is it substandard maintenance by CASA licensed LAMEs like yr right, and/or are the general run of Australian pilots unable to demonstrate adequate engine handling ability, so that maximum engine life is achieved.?
Tootle pip!!
Once again, as we have come to expect, you avoid the main issue.
Show us an example of where a Hangar Keepers (or similar) insurance policy limits the application of AD/ENG/4 and prohibits the policy holder's staff from signing out an aircraft if an engine is past Manufacturers Recommended TBO.
This nonsense is only an issue in Australia, I am mystified as to why engines in Australia are apparently so mush less reliable, compared to US/CA/NZ etc., that they must be limited to a figure that is a "recommendation", without regard to the service condition of the engine.
Is it substandard maintenance by CASA licensed LAMEs like yr right, and/or are the general run of Australian pilots unable to demonstrate adequate engine handling ability, so that maximum engine life is achieved.?
Tootle pip!!