CASA $1,000 Useless Compass Check
I keep my Jetranger under the bedroom at my home at Terrey Hills
How would you do the compass swing at less than $1k?
How would you do the compass swing at less than $1k?
Having a jet ranger under your bedroom is s luxury... If you can't afford it - sell it.
24 monthly radio and instrument check, nothing that doesn't get done in other parts of the world.
If you're going to operate in controlled airspace VFR or IFR then this stuff needs to be working to some known level of accuracy or standard.
If you're going to operate in controlled airspace VFR or IFR then this stuff needs to be working to some known level of accuracy or standard.
Thread Starter
I propose we copy other proven safe procedures from leading aviation countries if they result savings in expenditure.
If we don't we will further destroy our aviation industry.
Yes. I can afford the waste. But I am concerned about most in the industry who can't
If we don't we will further destroy our aviation industry.
Yes. I can afford the waste. But I am concerned about most in the industry who can't
Thread Starter
27/09. You are incorrect. Other leading aviation countries such as NZ , Canada and the U.S. do not have such money wasting requirements . I have checked!
Which may be a good thing or may be a bad thing.
But as Australians cannot be trusted to exercise independent judgment or take individual responsibility to deal with these extraordinarily complex technical and risk issues, it's necessary to makes thousands of pages of rules to ensure that society is saved from individual Australian's innate incompetence and criminality. Give me strength ...
I agree wholeheartedly with Dick's point on this one.
Ok, lets concede the compass, (assuming it hasn't leaked fluid or changes made to the aircraft), What about the other checks in the 100.5 amendment, do you think that they are not worthwhile as well. ASI's and altimeters last forever, for instance? Fuel gauges always accurate? Encoders never change? Static systems never deteriorate?
Compass calibration and other countries
NZ compass calibration requirements covered under Civil Aviation Rule 91.605(e) (5). And AC43-7 which lists the acceptable means of compliance as - 2 years
Canadian compass swing required under CAR standard 625 appendix C point 10 - 1 year
FAA - fairly typically no guidance provided HOWEVER aircraft is required to be in compliance with its type certification standard at completion of the annual inspection and type certification requirements FAR3, FAR23, require the compass to be accurate with errors of no more than 10 degrees. So technically annual should include a compass check - if not a full calibration.
So sorry dick but 27/09 has this one on the money.
It has occurred to me that the difference in compass swing requirements is more to do with the lack of navigational coverage in AUS as compared to the USA. WE have quite a few remote areas where 3 degrees of track can mean a long way from your destination. With little help from ATC
Canadian compass swing required under CAR standard 625 appendix C point 10 - 1 year
FAA - fairly typically no guidance provided HOWEVER aircraft is required to be in compliance with its type certification standard at completion of the annual inspection and type certification requirements FAR3, FAR23, require the compass to be accurate with errors of no more than 10 degrees. So technically annual should include a compass check - if not a full calibration.
So sorry dick but 27/09 has this one on the money.
It has occurred to me that the difference in compass swing requirements is more to do with the lack of navigational coverage in AUS as compared to the USA. WE have quite a few remote areas where 3 degrees of track can mean a long way from your destination. With little help from ATC
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a jet ranger under your bedroom is s luxury... If you can't afford it - sell it.
The problem is, unlike the can of coke,you can't just walk away from deal. If you want to keep flying you have to comply with every CASA solution to non existent problems.
We need a strong union to peer review all new rules or better still force the adoption of FAA rules.
What's a pissant country like Australia flying mostly American aircraft doing wasting millions and millions of dollars inventing it's own inferior system?
Thread Starter
Progressive. You are misreading the NZ and canadian regs. They are not as prescriptive as that
Do you work for CASA?
Rutan. Your last sentence is the best I have read on pprune for years. Can I quote it to the PM?
Do you work for CASA?
Rutan. Your last sentence is the best I have read on pprune for years. Can I quote it to the PM?
The word "compass" does not appear in CAO 100.5. So no checks required - by that CAO. So let's look elsewhere.
"Compass" does appear in AWB 34-008, but an AWB is not a regulation or an order, it's just advisory. CASA often tries to, but in reality, cannot demand things which are not mandated by regulation or order.
Does "compass checking" withstand the simple test: "show me where it says in the regulations that it needs testing."
It used to be in the old CAO 108.6, which got repealed in 2007, same time as AWB 34-008 hit the newsstands.
I suspect that it is just old wives tales regurgitated again and again by who knows, maybe poor LAMEs who can't keep up with the ever moving goal posts (regs) that keeps the compass checking BS alive and prosperou$ Dick. I'm with you on this one, it's pure BS. Sure - get it done if you notice a fault.
I also cringe whenever I hear LAMEs and others refer to CAR 35 engineers. THERE'S NO SUCH REGULATION 35! Hasn't been for years.
Hope this helps the battle Dick. I think we are out gunned by Fort Fumble. It's sad.
I also ask friends in USA this: "when, if ever, do you get your VFR aircraft instruments checked?" - NEVER.
"Compass" does appear in AWB 34-008, but an AWB is not a regulation or an order, it's just advisory. CASA often tries to, but in reality, cannot demand things which are not mandated by regulation or order.
Does "compass checking" withstand the simple test: "show me where it says in the regulations that it needs testing."
It used to be in the old CAO 108.6, which got repealed in 2007, same time as AWB 34-008 hit the newsstands.
I suspect that it is just old wives tales regurgitated again and again by who knows, maybe poor LAMEs who can't keep up with the ever moving goal posts (regs) that keeps the compass checking BS alive and prosperou$ Dick. I'm with you on this one, it's pure BS. Sure - get it done if you notice a fault.
I also cringe whenever I hear LAMEs and others refer to CAR 35 engineers. THERE'S NO SUCH REGULATION 35! Hasn't been for years.
Hope this helps the battle Dick. I think we are out gunned by Fort Fumble. It's sad.
I also ask friends in USA this: "when, if ever, do you get your VFR aircraft instruments checked?" - NEVER.
Last edited by thunderbird five; 8th Jan 2015 at 10:41. Reason: afterthought
I also ask friends in USA this: "when, if ever, do you get your VFR aircraft instruments checked?" - NEVER.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Thunder Bird Five is only suggested that it's carried out every two years. If they are travelling well from the last overhaul then I don't do swing them.
If the compass has been done in a vacuum chamber at last overhaul normally they go 4 years.
Of course if they have had a engine change or major electrical change then we would do them. I don't know what Dicks situation was.
I still call them CAR 35 , Even now its called Part 21M. Force of habit I guess.
If the compass has been done in a vacuum chamber at last overhaul normally they go 4 years.
Of course if they have had a engine change or major electrical change then we would do them. I don't know what Dicks situation was.
I still call them CAR 35 , Even now its called Part 21M. Force of habit I guess.
As usual, the debate disintegrates into the conflation of the "what maintenance should be done" argument with the "when and who should do it" argument.
Let's approach both arguments in a different way.
Who'd be prepared to fly a light aircraft with a dead compass, dead fuel gauges and a dead ASI?
Me, for one, if I had sufficient knowledge of the particular aircraft's systems.
This is the difference between being a piano tuner and a piano player.
Someone very close to me is lobbying to get rid of magnetic north, completely, in aviation navigation. For good reason.
If the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map on board my aircraft disagree with the compass, I'm opting for the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map, rather than the compass. On the one in a zillion chance that the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map are misleading and the compass is correct, I'm lost. Oh dear.
But that will happen less often than the compass becoming wonky in between periodic, certified servicings.
I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that in the latter case I will have become 'legally' lost, as a consequence of a fully certified and fully maintained piece of 18th century equipment suffering a random failure, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...
Who's silly enough to trust fuel gauges in a light aircraft? A common failure mode in the kind of aircraft I regularly fly is fuel gauges reading 'FULL' constantly, because of a fuel bladder being sucked up against the sender. To be safe(st), pilots need understand and be able to spot the typical circumstances in which fuel gauges maintained and certified in accordance with the rules are lying, rather than assume that periodically maintained and certified systems must be OK.
If I take off with tanks that I know are full (this requires aircraft and systems knowledge) but gauges reading 'EMPTY', and I know I have a fuel totalizer designed after the 1950s and calibrated to 0.1 of a litre in hundreds of litres, I'm comfortable that I can conduct a lengthy flight and predict, within a tolerance of +/- 2 litres, how much fuel will be needed to fill the tanks at the end. I'll have to have a clever procedure to confirm fuel isn't venting at a high rate from an unsecured cap or drain, though.
If you bother to look at all of the fuel exhaustion accident reports, the vast majority involve aircraft that had perfectly serviceable fuel gauges. Again, I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that the fuel gauges on these aircraft were certified serviceable and telling the pilot that the motion lotion was about to run out, and then it did, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...
The control column is an ASI. Ask aerobatic pilots why this is so.
The most recent 'real life' static system problem of which I am aware was caused by a maintenance problem: some engineer had reconnected the static lines, incorrectly, to the alternative static source valve.
Don't get me wrong: I'd prefer to have an ASI and other instruments and gauges that are working perfectly. The flight's usually a little less stressful if all the knobs and dials are in eye-pleasing positions.
But this discussion is not about - or shouldn't be hijacked into a discussion about - the principle of whether it's safe(r) to have all these things working. The discussion is about whether the suite of regulations requiring periodic inspections and certifications by licensed aircraft engineers is necessary, in practice, to produce sufficiently reliable systems. That question has been answered, based on statistically valid data, elsewhere.
Unfortunately, Australian's innate incompetence and criminality results in the rejection of that answer as acceptable and implementable in the Australian context.
Apparently it's all OK because you can afford it, Dick....
Let's approach both arguments in a different way.
Who'd be prepared to fly a light aircraft with a dead compass, dead fuel gauges and a dead ASI?
Me, for one, if I had sufficient knowledge of the particular aircraft's systems.
This is the difference between being a piano tuner and a piano player.
Someone very close to me is lobbying to get rid of magnetic north, completely, in aviation navigation. For good reason.
If the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map on board my aircraft disagree with the compass, I'm opting for the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map, rather than the compass. On the one in a zillion chance that the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map are misleading and the compass is correct, I'm lost. Oh dear.
But that will happen less often than the compass becoming wonky in between periodic, certified servicings.
I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that in the latter case I will have become 'legally' lost, as a consequence of a fully certified and fully maintained piece of 18th century equipment suffering a random failure, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...
Who's silly enough to trust fuel gauges in a light aircraft? A common failure mode in the kind of aircraft I regularly fly is fuel gauges reading 'FULL' constantly, because of a fuel bladder being sucked up against the sender. To be safe(st), pilots need understand and be able to spot the typical circumstances in which fuel gauges maintained and certified in accordance with the rules are lying, rather than assume that periodically maintained and certified systems must be OK.
If I take off with tanks that I know are full (this requires aircraft and systems knowledge) but gauges reading 'EMPTY', and I know I have a fuel totalizer designed after the 1950s and calibrated to 0.1 of a litre in hundreds of litres, I'm comfortable that I can conduct a lengthy flight and predict, within a tolerance of +/- 2 litres, how much fuel will be needed to fill the tanks at the end. I'll have to have a clever procedure to confirm fuel isn't venting at a high rate from an unsecured cap or drain, though.
If you bother to look at all of the fuel exhaustion accident reports, the vast majority involve aircraft that had perfectly serviceable fuel gauges. Again, I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that the fuel gauges on these aircraft were certified serviceable and telling the pilot that the motion lotion was about to run out, and then it did, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...
The control column is an ASI. Ask aerobatic pilots why this is so.
The most recent 'real life' static system problem of which I am aware was caused by a maintenance problem: some engineer had reconnected the static lines, incorrectly, to the alternative static source valve.
Don't get me wrong: I'd prefer to have an ASI and other instruments and gauges that are working perfectly. The flight's usually a little less stressful if all the knobs and dials are in eye-pleasing positions.
But this discussion is not about - or shouldn't be hijacked into a discussion about - the principle of whether it's safe(r) to have all these things working. The discussion is about whether the suite of regulations requiring periodic inspections and certifications by licensed aircraft engineers is necessary, in practice, to produce sufficiently reliable systems. That question has been answered, based on statistically valid data, elsewhere.
Unfortunately, Australian's innate incompetence and criminality results in the rejection of that answer as acceptable and implementable in the Australian context.
Apparently it's all OK because you can afford it, Dick....
x2
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 used to have my instruments checked every two or three years but it was a waste of time.
altimeters are calibrated to within 100ft of actual.
I could never understand why my altimeter on the ground never matched the QNH settings of others. they were calibrated but they never ever agreed.
so I came to the opinion that aviation instruments were crap.
as a surveyor I am well accustomed to calibrated precision instruments.
one day I was collecting my recalibrated instruments.
the guy (lacewing) said thank god you've turned up. you were the last customer and now I can retire. thank fcuk for that.
as I took the instruments out the door he shared with me this little gem...
"you homebuilt guys haven't got a hope you know. I always calibrate your instruments so that no matter how well you fly you always appear in the circuit at the wrong height."
why I asked.
"got to maintain the need for a certified environment you know".
well as the years have rolled by since I now have 5 altimeters.
I also have access to the kollsman instrument adjustment manual.
I adjusted all my altimeters sitting beside an IFR certified instrument (sitting on the ground in the copilots seat one day.)
only since I have adjusted them do I have 5 instruments that always agree within the 100ft tolerance.
Dick, even when you do get them calibrated, you can't trust the work done.
I swing my own compass. it isn't hard to do.
they are only accurate to 5 degrees. they aren't marked any finer than that unless you have a tiger moth P2 style compass.
you really only need to work on the compass if the rotation of the card becomes erratic due to the peening out of true of the tapered pivot post.
or they develop a leak.
havent had a problem with mine in a decade. it is tucked away out of the heat at the bottom of the panel which helps.
calibrations are yet another set of sensible ideas developed to idiocy.
W8
altimeters are calibrated to within 100ft of actual.
I could never understand why my altimeter on the ground never matched the QNH settings of others. they were calibrated but they never ever agreed.
so I came to the opinion that aviation instruments were crap.
as a surveyor I am well accustomed to calibrated precision instruments.
one day I was collecting my recalibrated instruments.
the guy (lacewing) said thank god you've turned up. you were the last customer and now I can retire. thank fcuk for that.
as I took the instruments out the door he shared with me this little gem...
"you homebuilt guys haven't got a hope you know. I always calibrate your instruments so that no matter how well you fly you always appear in the circuit at the wrong height."
why I asked.
"got to maintain the need for a certified environment you know".
well as the years have rolled by since I now have 5 altimeters.
I also have access to the kollsman instrument adjustment manual.
I adjusted all my altimeters sitting beside an IFR certified instrument (sitting on the ground in the copilots seat one day.)
only since I have adjusted them do I have 5 instruments that always agree within the 100ft tolerance.
Dick, even when you do get them calibrated, you can't trust the work done.
I swing my own compass. it isn't hard to do.
they are only accurate to 5 degrees. they aren't marked any finer than that unless you have a tiger moth P2 style compass.
you really only need to work on the compass if the rotation of the card becomes erratic due to the peening out of true of the tapered pivot post.
or they develop a leak.
havent had a problem with mine in a decade. it is tucked away out of the heat at the bottom of the panel which helps.
calibrations are yet another set of sensible ideas developed to idiocy.
W8
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Aimlessly wandering
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel gauges? Why has no one mentioned the fact that we use a dipstick, every flight, because fuel gauges are about as accurate as news reporting?
It's a foolhardy pilot that trusts a fuel gauge without dipping the tank. Properly certified or not.
It's a foolhardy pilot that trusts a fuel gauge without dipping the tank. Properly certified or not.
Dick Smith
Dick I cannot talk about the Canadian Regs, but I can for the NZ ones and the 24 month inspection is not optional it is mandatory. Every NZ registered aircraft has a compass calibration sticker near the compass or on the panel which has an expiry date. It has to be renewed every 24 months.
I'm sorry your information on this issue is incorrect.
Progressive. You are misreading the NZ and canadian regs. They are not as prescriptive as that
I'm sorry your information on this issue is incorrect.