Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

CASA $1,000 Useless Compass Check

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

CASA $1,000 Useless Compass Check

Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:47
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,404
Oh god,
I listen to you guys and I wonder.
We get what we deserve, creamy is as usual right.
CAsA has the industry bluffed,bamboozled and completely, comprehensively beaten.
Here we are arguing over a $1000 dollar completely unnecessary maintenance requirement and while we are distracted arguing over horse shit, the bureaucrats stealthily manoeuvre to chop the industry off at the ankles.

As Creamie says, thousands of pages of horse shit and we are still not safe.
Spare me, we may just as well pull the pin now and go find something else to amuse ourselves, aviation in Australia is stuffed, save yourself some money and quit while your ahead.
There is just too much money locked up in secondary airports alone to defend against corruption, which was probably set up a long time ago. Pay day is rapidly approaching for the hierarchy, hey look at what a recent Foreign minister won, farms in NZ??? what do you think them that facilitated the sell off of GA airports will get?? We are talking about billions of $$$. These people are very very clever, unfortunately much cleverer than us.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 19:31
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,608
Against my better judgement, I'm going to weigh in on this. I think a compass calibration under flight conditions is a worthwhile thing.

I have personally experienced sophisticated navigation and autopilot systems going haywire - admittedly on a yacht, at night. The results are a raft of confusing and contradictory indications and my only means of determining which parts of the system were lying to me was my Sestrel magnetic compass.

I understand that a similar failure mode caused the loss of an Airbus in the Atlantic. Clock compass and ASI - first principles in an emergency.

To put that another way; a man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with Two is never sure.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 21:39
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So all of that leads you to the conclusion that magnetic compasses should be mandatory for helicopters, and those compasses should be the subject of mandatory periodic calibrations by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, on pain of criminal prosecution?

If so, like I said, it's no wonder the GA community is such easy pickings for the regulator.

(As a matter of interest, Sunny, when was your yacht's Sestrel magnetic compass last calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster? When is it next due for a mandatory calibration? What penalty do you face if you go to sea without your yacht's compass having been calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster?)
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 22:50
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,705
I'm with you Creamie. We spend hours studying compasses when we do our theory,whether it be for a pilot licence or a yacht master ticket. On my boat I often compare GPS against compass when in calm water so that there is little drift to worry about. Or if I am really keen I run a transit check, which to the uninitiated is similar to being on a taxiway or runway aligned with a known bearing..That way I know that ithe compass is within 5 to 8 degrees on all points. That is good enough because I can't steer better than that anyway.
The regulations require pilots to do an instrument check every flight. Surely that includes a basic confidence check of the wet compass. We learned all about it to pass those exams, right?
At the point where it is too far out of whack to be good enough to get you home in an emergency - say 15 degrees - may be the time to call in the adjuster. Or DIY and don't say anything.....(just kidding, but again we did learn how to do it in theory).
But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
To those who advocate blind obedience to CASA, try flying a typical golf ball wet compass to better than plus or minus 15 degrees in turbulence and let me know how you get on.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 04:58
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
So the CAA bureaucrats in New Zealand have also decided that they need to have more expensive regulations than the USA.
Particularly given the size and shape of NZ, where is is a bit hard to get lost. No GAFA equivalent in NZ

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 06:25
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,172
These people are very very clever, unfortunately much cleverer than us
Not clever at all Thorny, just corrupt and we let them get away with it.

If a rule is sensible I follow it, if I think its stupid I break it.

A compass swing on my aircraft is totally unnecessary. If it has a bubble I will fix it, if it is incorrect I will adjust it. If I think its stuffed I will replace it.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 08:10
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,320
Can I please ask a question, which I would like you to answer.

1) do you understand that the rules are written for the masses, not the legends that you people, clearly, are??

For the Americans, (Creampuff) you will notice I have only asked one question at a time, since I know it seems to confuse you Americans if there is more than one at a time.

Last edited by Arnold E; 11th Jan 2015 at 09:11.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 09:10
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new zealand
Posts: 93
"Particularly given the size and shape of NZ, where is is a bit hard to get lost." and yet people still manage it. We've also got or share of 'missing' aircraft- there's plenty of bush, forest, mountains and water to do the job.
scroogee is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 10:23
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Arnold

Your question makes an assertion about the persons for whom rules are written, and asks whether I understand that the rules are written for those persons.

Your assertion is not completely accurate. But let's assume for a moment that it is.

The point of this thread is that the rules are an overkill, if the policy aim of those rules is safety.

Eventually Sunfish will confirm that the compass on his yacht does not have to be periodically calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster. Yet he managed to use that compass to navigate when all the electronic gizmos went haywire. How did that compass know that it was fitted to a yacht rather than an aircraft, and that it didn't have to be periodically calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster? How did it know?

Any mediocre pilot like me can manage to fly an aircraft safely from A to B, VFR, without a compass, an altimeter or ASI (or any GPSs or EFB). Any mediocre pilot like me can manage to fly an aircraft safely from A to B, VFR, and know how accurate the compass, altimeter and ASI are, and if I extend myself to the outer reaches of my intellectual capacity, I can work out if the Mode C info is accurate.

There's a reason for drawing those tracks, drift lines and distance markers on a map. There's a reason for those big white numbers on runways, and the runway magnetic alignment and elevation information in ERSA. The sun rises and sets in the same general directions each day. The pointers in the Southern Cross reliably do what those pointers do.

I'll say it for a third time: It's not about the desirability of serviceable and accurate instruments. It's about the presumption of innate incompetence and criminality of Australians, mixed with scaremongering that plays on the fears of ignorant punters, that has produced the regulatory Frankenstein destroying GA.

I'm unsurprised by the cognitive bias of punters that results in screams for more regulation, in the misguided belief that more and more rules will reduce the risk of the 30,000' death plunge. What is surprising to me is that people who should know better - those with considerable knowledge and experience in aviation - also succumb to, or worse - leverage off - cognitive bias, by calling for more and more regulation or trying to justify existing regulation that has been shown to have no material affect on safety (or worse, has been shown to have a negative impact on safety).
Creampuff is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 10:32
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,320
trying to justify existing regulation that has been shown to have no material affect on safety (or worse, has been shown to have a negative impact on safety).
So read post 79 and answer me, do you think that such a situation could cause a problem? if not, then all is good in the world.

Last edited by Arnold E; 11th Jan 2015 at 11:23.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 11:17
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
All the talk about unnecessary maitanence would have some merit if these checks were being done and no defects were being found. The facts are that defects are being found, serious ones at that. Isn't that the point of these test?
evolved is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 11:42
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,320
altimeters are calibrated to within 100ft of actual.
WRONG.....read 100.5 and tell me what it says.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 12:50
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 427
Chinese altimeters are the worst, find many wont pass CAO 100.5 checks. Unfortunately they appear in many flight school Jabiru's or other RA-AUS training aircraft. AD/INST/39 covers a 12 month check instead of the CAO 100.5 24 month check.

Pure junk! proving you pay for what you get
Hasherucf is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 18:27
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,172
Arnold, the situation you talk about in #79 should be picked up by ay competent instructor. 5 knots in a lighty is a lot. Did the aeroplane float unnecessarily or did it bang onto the runway when rounded out? If, in your opinion, everytime something is "not right" in this world we need legislation, I feel sorry for you. The legislators couldn't write fast enough.

Can I please ask a question, which I would like you to answer.
1) do you understand that the rules are written for the masses, not the legends that you people, clearly, are??
By identifying "the masses" are you not making yourself one of "the legends"?
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 20:32
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The good news for you, Arnold, is that the Australian regulator is very happy to mandate as much periodic maintenance as you like.

Given the circumstances with which you have obvious concerns, I'd suggest you lobby for a prohibition on aircraft being used by pilots with fewer than - let's pluck - 100 hours' aeronautical experience, unless all of the flight instruments in the aircraft have been checked and calibrated by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer in the previous - let's pluck - 6 months.

Stuff it: we're talking about safety here! Let's make it 200 hours in command minimum, and checks and calibrations every 3 months or 30 hours' TIS, whichever comes first.

The 'masses' in the USA can learn much about aviation safety from Australians.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 20:39
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,404
Jeez creamie!!
Bite your tongue!!

Oh dear, here comes another five hundred pages of new reg's.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2015, 23:46
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 55
Posts: 123
WARNING!!! - Thread Drift...

I know all of the above has concerned VFR flight, and I know how useless most liquid filled compasses are, but WRT to IFR, other than the compass how can you re-align the DG in flight? And how picky is ATC with regard to your heading accuracy? I can understand getting a compass checked every 24 months for IFR, but as Mach E says, in the bumps you'd be lucky to get any better than 15 degree accuracy.
Dexta is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2015, 01:22
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,372
What your compass says is almost irrelevant to ATC.

If they need you to alter heading they will say "turn left 30 degrees."

You could have a compass 30 degrees off and it would not matter to them as they would rarely say "turn to heading 180," however if they did, they would soon follow with "turn right 30 degrees" once they realise your track didn't reflect the request.

I don't think I've ever heard of a bearing been given by ATC other than for traffic avoidance and even then it's usually just following eight points of the cardinals.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 12th Jan 2015, 01:25
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,320
Given the circumstances with which you have obvious concerns, I'd suggest you lobby for a prohibition on aircraft being used by pilots with fewer than - let's pluck - 100 hours' aeronautical experience, unless all of the flight instruments in the aircraft have been checked and calibrated by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer in the previous - let's pluck - 6 months.
Do you believe that, that kind of response is sensible?
So its an easy answer which you still haven't done, in the circumstance in post 79, do you see any potential for a problem, yes or no?
Also, please give the exact quotation where I have said more legislation is necessary. I know that's 3 questions and I know your American, but try not to go into melt down.
By identifying "the masses" are you not making yourself one of "the legends"?
No
Arnold E is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2015, 03:25
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Do you believe that, that kind of response is sensible?
On what basis have you determined that the current mandated periods are “sensible”, Arnold? Clearly not on the basis of an objective analysis of data and accident statistics from the single largest GA fleet on the planet.

Your question about the scenario in your post at #79 demonstrates the yawning gap that exists, in Australia, between decisions based on rational analysis of data and risk probabilities and consequences, and your gut feeling about the probabilities and consequences of a “potential problem”. Further, in true Australian style, the solution to the perceived problem is, as always, regulation.

You found an aircraft that had an ASI that over read by 7 knots, out of the factory. From that you extrapolate to the poor junior pilot glued to the ASI, stalling, spinning, crashing and burning. You say that the “skys are filled” with these people.

Oh the humanity.

For every example you can provide of some problem you’ve discovered “out of the factory”, I can provide an example of some problem I’ve discovered “out of the maintenance organisation”.

Perhaps we need more regulation and periodic audits of aircraft manufactures and maintenance organisations? Yes – that’s it. I think we should all be lobbying for more stringent training standards, more stringent recency requirements and more frequent audits of LAMEs and maintenance organisations by CASA. That will help make us safer, yes?
Creampuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.