Legal experts: CAO 20.18.10
That these simple matters are still the subject of confusion and uncertainty after decades of expensive "simplification" is an appalling indictment.
The answer to the question whether e.g. a blown navigation light bulb has to be changed before further flight has NOTHING to do with the schedule of maintenance or the system of maintenance against which the aircraft is being maintained.
The answer is determined by the proper interpretation and application of 20.18 and the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be employed for the specific flight.
An aircraft can be employed in a charter operation from A to B in the morning and a private operation from B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight A to B in the morning are determined by 20.18. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon are determined by 20.18. The proper interpretation and application of 20.18 will produce different results for each of those flights.
If my aircraft has a charter MR and is being maintained against an approved system of maintenance, it can be employed in charter operations. But it can also be employed in private operations. What operations I choose to employ my aircraft in is my business.
If it flies from A to B and along the way an instrument required for charter operations fails, the aircraft cannot continue in charter operations from B (unless the aircraft has a PUS/MEL or SFP covering the item). However, if the instrument is not required for private operations, the aircraft can be employed in private operations (after the item is entered in the MR/approved alternative and placarded U/S).
The answer to the question whether e.g. a blown navigation light bulb has to be changed before further flight has NOTHING to do with the schedule of maintenance or the system of maintenance against which the aircraft is being maintained.
The answer is determined by the proper interpretation and application of 20.18 and the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be employed for the specific flight.
An aircraft can be employed in a charter operation from A to B in the morning and a private operation from B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight A to B in the morning are determined by 20.18. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon are determined by 20.18. The proper interpretation and application of 20.18 will produce different results for each of those flights.
If my aircraft has a charter MR and is being maintained against an approved system of maintenance, it can be employed in charter operations. But it can also be employed in private operations. What operations I choose to employ my aircraft in is my business.
If it flies from A to B and along the way an instrument required for charter operations fails, the aircraft cannot continue in charter operations from B (unless the aircraft has a PUS/MEL or SFP covering the item). However, if the instrument is not required for private operations, the aircraft can be employed in private operations (after the item is entered in the MR/approved alternative and placarded U/S).
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has certainly generated some opinion and common sense attitude, however, I for one am still not convinced. As I said, I personally had some interaction with CASA over this very matter and the clear interpretation of 20.18 in this respect was that only the instruments and equipment directed to be fitted by CAR 207 (2) are required to be serviceable. (see AIP GEN 1.5 as an example) So, say your No 2 COM was U/S, you may not necessarily have to apply for a PUS to be able to carry on. Another example might be an aircraft which no longer operates under the IFR but is still fitted with 2 attitude indicators, and one of them goes U/S - no approval or PUS would be required from CASA to operate a charter flight the VFR.
One thing that the CASA AWI was however, emphatic about, was the requirement to ensure that any bit of equipment like those examples, was placarded as U/S as per the CAO and, if removed, was removed in accordance with approved maintenance instructions/data/tools, etc (which might rule that procedure out for pilots without the right approvals , tools etc.)
Cheers, ORH
One thing that the CASA AWI was however, emphatic about, was the requirement to ensure that any bit of equipment like those examples, was placarded as U/S as per the CAO and, if removed, was removed in accordance with approved maintenance instructions/data/tools, etc (which might rule that procedure out for pilots without the right approvals , tools etc.)
Cheers, ORH
Not sure of what, specifically, you are not convinced ORH, but in any event
Some history of the reference to 207(2) in 20.18 will help to understand where we are at and why (and why ORH's explanation of the current operation of 20.18 is, in my view, the correct one.)
The opening words to 10.1 of 20.18 used to say:
[Bolding added]
Those words were interpreted to mean what they said.
So, for example, if an aircraft that was to be engaged in charter or regular public transport had a UHF radio fitted, the UHF radio had to be serviceable unless one of the exceptions in 10.1 applied. In other words, even though a UHF radio was not required to be fitted to the aircraft in the first place, having chosen to fit a UHF radio it had to be serviceable in the aircraft while it was engaged in charter or RPT, unless one of the exceptions applied. This was patently silly (although note that in some cases this kind of equipment can have W&B effects, so flying with it removed as opposed to fitted but U/S can have safety implications).
Consequently, 20.18 has been amended so that the opening words of 10.1 now say:
[Bolding added]
So, if an aircraft engaged in e.g. charter is required to have e.g. only 1 VHF but the aircraft is fitted with 2 VHFs, the aircraft can be engaged in charter if one of the VHFs is U/S (and placarded as U/S), without a PUS, approval, SFP etc.
Some history of the reference to 207(2) in 20.18 will help to understand where we are at and why (and why ORH's explanation of the current operation of 20.18 is, in my view, the correct one.)
The opening words to 10.1 of 20.18 used to say:
In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless [one of the listed exceptions PUS/MEL, CASA approval/SFP, PAX convenience item applied.]
Those words were interpreted to mean what they said.
So, for example, if an aircraft that was to be engaged in charter or regular public transport had a UHF radio fitted, the UHF radio had to be serviceable unless one of the exceptions in 10.1 applied. In other words, even though a UHF radio was not required to be fitted to the aircraft in the first place, having chosen to fit a UHF radio it had to be serviceable in the aircraft while it was engaged in charter or RPT, unless one of the exceptions applied. This was patently silly (although note that in some cases this kind of equipment can have W&B effects, so flying with it removed as opposed to fitted but U/S can have safety implications).
Consequently, 20.18 has been amended so that the opening words of 10.1 now say:
In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment that it carries, or is fitted with, under subregulation 207 (2) of CAR 1988 must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
So, if an aircraft engaged in e.g. charter is required to have e.g. only 1 VHF but the aircraft is fitted with 2 VHFs, the aircraft can be engaged in charter if one of the VHFs is U/S (and placarded as U/S), without a PUS, approval, SFP etc.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is maintained to one and one only maintenance system. It cannot be changed with out the lbs being reissues period.
The aircraft can be flown to what ever cat you wish to. But the maintenance system will restrict you if you have an unserviceable part. You will require as I've said an EO pus or mel even to fly in private period. The aircraft maintence dose not change because you fly charter there and private back. One maintence system is all you have.
The aircraft can be flown to what ever cat you wish to. But the maintenance system will restrict you if you have an unserviceable part. You will require as I've said an EO pus or mel even to fly in private period. The aircraft maintence dose not change because you fly charter there and private back. One maintence system is all you have.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Creampuff. I believe my current interpretation (as delivered by CASA) is correct also. What I mean by "unconvinced" is that I'm not persuaded to the contrary by the conflicting arguments on the thread.
Cheers.
Cheers.
So you don't have an mel EO or pus and you place an unserviceablity on the m/r then how do you release it and what do you do it IAW ?????
The system or schedule of maintenance for an aircraft does not determine whether an aircraft may be operated with an instrument or piece of equipment U/S. CAO 20.18 does.
Stick to tuning the piano. Leave the playing to the players.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you may have to go in to re education. By dropping to a lower flying cat it dose not drop the maintence requirements which are set in the lbs. Which can also be seen on the M/R. This is unless for all these years we all been doing it wrong !!!!
Let's do it by example.
Imagine an aircraft freshly out of maintenance and for which a maintenance release has been issued in the charter category, IFR. The aircraft MTOW is not more than 5,700 kgs.
The aircraft is happily employed in charter operations for a few weeks, until one of the two pressure altimeters fails on a trip from A to B.
Question for yr right: What rule prohibits the aircraft from being flown from B to somewhere else, in the private category?
It seems to me that unless the Flight Manual for the aircraft requires two serviceable altimeters, it's perfectly legal to fly the aircraft from B to somewhere else in the private category with only one serviceable altimeter (provided the unserviceable altimeter is entered in the MR and placarded U/S). See provisions 3.4 and 10.1A of CAO 20.18, and CARs 2(6) and 5(2).
Please: Just nominate the regulation that prohibits the aircraft from being employed in operations in the private category, with the second altimeter U/S in the MR and placarded.
This happens in the real world all the time. It's just that the piano tuners don't know about it until the piano players decide they need the second altimeter repaired so that the aircraft can again be employed in charter operations.
Imagine an aircraft freshly out of maintenance and for which a maintenance release has been issued in the charter category, IFR. The aircraft MTOW is not more than 5,700 kgs.
The aircraft is happily employed in charter operations for a few weeks, until one of the two pressure altimeters fails on a trip from A to B.
Question for yr right: What rule prohibits the aircraft from being flown from B to somewhere else, in the private category?
It seems to me that unless the Flight Manual for the aircraft requires two serviceable altimeters, it's perfectly legal to fly the aircraft from B to somewhere else in the private category with only one serviceable altimeter (provided the unserviceable altimeter is entered in the MR and placarded U/S). See provisions 3.4 and 10.1A of CAO 20.18, and CARs 2(6) and 5(2).
Please: Just nominate the regulation that prohibits the aircraft from being employed in operations in the private category, with the second altimeter U/S in the MR and placarded.
This happens in the real world all the time. It's just that the piano tuners don't know about it until the piano players decide they need the second altimeter repaired so that the aircraft can again be employed in charter operations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by yr right
In that case the aircraft would have a mel and that can be used.
Indeed, you are confusing "charter operations" with "charter category" (which simply categorises the operations the aircraft is allowed to conduct):
10.4 The holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate authorising charter operations: (a) may have a minimum equipment list or lists for the aircraft used to conduct those operations
But it can still fly private or airwork in accordance with 20.18.10.1A
Originally Posted by yr right
So you don't have an mel EO or pus and you place an unserviceablity on the m/r then how do you release it and what do you do it IAW ?????
You know, I keep asking you for a reference - for some sort of legislation - to support what you have been saying all this time.
Yet every time I ask, you ignore the question.
So I will respectfully ask you one last time: where is the legislative reference to support what you are saying?
Last edited by Virtually There; 30th Sep 2014 at 15:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, what does "higher standard" mean? I've just looked at our last 100-hourly and it states the aircraft (in the charter category) was maintained to Schedule 5 - which is exactly what Draggertail said.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 207 Requirements according to operations on which Australian aircraft used
(1) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if CASA has not authorised and approved the particular type of aircraft for that use.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if the aircraft is not:
(a) fitted with instruments; and
(b) fitted with, or carrying, equipment, including emergency equipment;
that CASA has approved and directed.
(1) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if CASA has not authorised and approved the particular type of aircraft for that use.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if the aircraft is not:
(a) fitted with instruments; and
(b) fitted with, or carrying, equipment, including emergency equipment;
that CASA has approved and directed.
Where is the regulation that supports what you are saying?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we need this guy to tune up our regulations. He seems to be able to not only identify the problem, but knows exactly how to fix it, make it all better.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say this for the last time. Having been someone that has written used mels etc on muti Engine turbine engine in remote areas of Australia I think I may have a little bit of knowlege on this subject also having released more aircraft than I care to admit.
20.18 is min equip required for each cat. It is not any way saying that if you are in a higher cat you can drop down and fly. If your in a higher cat YOUR maintenance must reflect what the LBS and the M/R state. In other words if you are in charter you can't just drop down a cat and fly and enter it in the M/R unless it is IAW.
If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points. It won't worry me. As I said you are not allowed to go against what the LBS states. It's maintence and not flying ops. Period.
Cheers
20.18 is min equip required for each cat. It is not any way saying that if you are in a higher cat you can drop down and fly. If your in a higher cat YOUR maintenance must reflect what the LBS and the M/R state. In other words if you are in charter you can't just drop down a cat and fly and enter it in the M/R unless it is IAW.
If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points. It won't worry me. As I said you are not allowed to go against what the LBS states. It's maintence and not flying ops. Period.
Cheers