Proposed AD/Prop/1 Amendment 3
Thread Starter
Proposed AD/Prop/1 Amendment 3
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...D-PROP-001.pdf
Looks like CASA are seeing a bunch of corroded props and are enforcing calendar inspections (6 years).
Can anyone elaborate ?
Looks like CASA are seeing a bunch of corroded props and are enforcing calendar inspections (6 years).
Can anyone elaborate ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I smell a rat………
but it is 10.20pm and I am so over CASA that even here I can't be bothered. But if anyone can name and shame the industry proponents overnight I will have my 20c+GST worth tomorrow.
I have had several emails today from several high profile folk, and it ll points to idiotic incompetence and a conspiracy that is actually believable for a change.
Nite all.
but it is 10.20pm and I am so over CASA that even here I can't be bothered. But if anyone can name and shame the industry proponents overnight I will have my 20c+GST worth tomorrow.
I have had several emails today from several high profile folk, and it ll points to idiotic incompetence and a conspiracy that is actually believable for a change.
Nite all.
Folks,
As usual,
Anybody for a Freedom of Information request to find out where the claims of problems came from --- and no prizes for guessing correctly!!
Tootle pip!!
As usual,
- assertions of alleged problems, but no details.
- No safety case
- No cost/benefit justification
- The Government mandatory policy contained in the Australian Government Guide to Regulation ignored.
Anybody for a Freedom of Information request to find out where the claims of problems came from --- and no prizes for guessing correctly!!
Tootle pip!!
Props? Pffff...
ALL ENGINES are heading for the same treatment, according to some CASA ageing aircraft reps a little while back.
This little gem was pointed out to the new director not long ago by a concerned aviator.
ALL ENGINES are heading for the same treatment, according to some CASA ageing aircraft reps a little while back.
This little gem was pointed out to the new director not long ago by a concerned aviator.
It's "evidence based" regulation.
There's evidence of some unidentified person's opinion, based on unquantified numbers of reports to the Service Difficulty Reporting System of unspecified numbers of defects that have caused non-existent accidents and incidents, that there is a "compromise to air safety" that justifies an AD.
There's evidence that some owners aren't doing proper daily inspections of propellors and some engineers aren't doing a proper annual inspections of propellors, so it stands to reason that all owners will have to pay to have other engineers do a proper 6 yearly inspection, on the basis the opinion of other engineers.
This is evidence of the existence of the thing called SLIC: The "Self-Licking Ice Cream".
The deafening silence from so-called representative bodies of aircraft owners in response to stuff like this and the cable AD is evidence of their almost complete lack of knowledge of and inability to respond coherently and effectively to any regulatory issue that's a little complex.
ENG 4 will be next. All those engines operated past recommended TBO with all those engine monitors producing data being analysed by people who understand how engines really operate are, let's face it, evidence of a "compromise to air safety".
It's quite ghastly but compelling viewing: watching a whole sector of the aviation industry being sleepwalked to extinction.
There's evidence of some unidentified person's opinion, based on unquantified numbers of reports to the Service Difficulty Reporting System of unspecified numbers of defects that have caused non-existent accidents and incidents, that there is a "compromise to air safety" that justifies an AD.
There's evidence that some owners aren't doing proper daily inspections of propellors and some engineers aren't doing a proper annual inspections of propellors, so it stands to reason that all owners will have to pay to have other engineers do a proper 6 yearly inspection, on the basis the opinion of other engineers.
This is evidence of the existence of the thing called SLIC: The "Self-Licking Ice Cream".
The deafening silence from so-called representative bodies of aircraft owners in response to stuff like this and the cable AD is evidence of their almost complete lack of knowledge of and inability to respond coherently and effectively to any regulatory issue that's a little complex.
ENG 4 will be next. All those engines operated past recommended TBO with all those engine monitors producing data being analysed by people who understand how engines really operate are, let's face it, evidence of a "compromise to air safety".
It's quite ghastly but compelling viewing: watching a whole sector of the aviation industry being sleepwalked to extinction.
so-called representative bodies of aircraft owners in response to stuff like this and the cable AD is evidence of their almost complete lack of knowledge of and inability to respond coherently and effectively to any regulatory issue that's a little complex
I was naive in that I expected some sort of reply. Heck they could have easily changed my opinion, but the silence was deafening.
Ghastly and compelling viewing indeed. The collape of the industry continues unabated and unopposed.
Try a bit of opposition....
and see what you get...
The simple 'Caravan to Canberra' doing just that got slagged off, abused and the Prune threads shut because some people just dont want to hear the truth be told, or believe in the right to free speech.
CAsA induced problems were found from Cairns to Canberra and beyond...but who wants to listen? Not the faarking Dept of Transport etc., miniscule or the elected "government" either...
We live in a free and democratic society....?
PORCINE RECTUM..!!
We live under the thumb of UNelected bureaurats, freely doing what they feel like, unaccountable to anyone, of no interest by the "minster", and blithely going about shafting an industry in the process.
All in the name of "safety" of course.
So just suck it up, you guys. When yr aircraft is in the shop getting the prop done, the engine done ,the compass checked, the radios done, the ADSB fitted and old airframe done...( no flying, no accidents),,and yr bank balance is done you can leave the aircraft to the LAME and drive home.
Oh, thats right the roads are much more dangerous, so its got me beat why the Guvmint doesnt put CAsA on to that safety problem as well.
Think how big the trough would be then...
The simple 'Caravan to Canberra' doing just that got slagged off, abused and the Prune threads shut because some people just dont want to hear the truth be told, or believe in the right to free speech.
CAsA induced problems were found from Cairns to Canberra and beyond...but who wants to listen? Not the faarking Dept of Transport etc., miniscule or the elected "government" either...
We live in a free and democratic society....?
PORCINE RECTUM..!!
We live under the thumb of UNelected bureaurats, freely doing what they feel like, unaccountable to anyone, of no interest by the "minster", and blithely going about shafting an industry in the process.
All in the name of "safety" of course.
So just suck it up, you guys. When yr aircraft is in the shop getting the prop done, the engine done ,the compass checked, the radios done, the ADSB fitted and old airframe done...( no flying, no accidents
),,and yr bank balance is done you can leave the aircraft to the LAME and drive home.Oh, thats right the roads are much more dangerous, so its got me beat why the Guvmint doesnt put CAsA on to that safety problem as well.
Think how big the trough would be then...
Moderator
Threads were shut because posters were going against the forum guidelines that they had agreed to.
You can have as much "free speech" as you like on your own forum.
You can have as much "free speech" as you like on your own forum.
Overhauls vs inspections
Calendar inspections is one thing, but what CASA are proposing are OVERHAULS every 6 yrs.
If the problems are as endemic as CASA suggests (evidence pse?) then I could possibly see a case for inspections and repair as necessary (IRAN) as opposed to removing every removeable thing (even it was working perfectly) and replacing with a NEW thing (OVERHAUL), with the consequent risks of infant mortality again and Maintenance Induced Failures...
Who in their right mind undergoes a prophylactic heart transplant just because there was a number of heart attacks in their family....???
I wonder if anyone has statistics for MIFs - wouldn't be surprised if they are as prevalent (if not more prevalent) than the original problems they were supposed to solve.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
If the problems are as endemic as CASA suggests (evidence pse?) then I could possibly see a case for inspections and repair as necessary (IRAN) as opposed to removing every removeable thing (even it was working perfectly) and replacing with a NEW thing (OVERHAUL), with the consequent risks of infant mortality again and Maintenance Induced Failures...
Who in their right mind undergoes a prophylactic heart transplant just because there was a number of heart attacks in their family....???
I wonder if anyone has statistics for MIFs - wouldn't be surprised if they are as prevalent (if not more prevalent) than the original problems they were supposed to solve.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Last edited by QFF; 14th Apr 2015 at 02:02. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am glad to see many of us are thinking the same way, I will be writing to CASA responding but first with a letter to Mr Skidmore suggesting he wander into whoevers office and give them a clip in the ear for being so stupid.
Points I see are,
1. Lack of data. There is no evidence to support this PAD at all, because CASA have not given us any at all to comment on. That evidence needs to be backed up with credible reports detailing who when and where.
2. The data needs to also have some research into how these props got to where they did in the first place. Otherwise it is facts in isolation. The old correlation not causation trick.
3. This PAD would only be complied with by good honest and caring aircraft owners who have either their own maintenance authority or a LAME that is likewise caring. Guess what……they are highly unlikely to have any problems so their compliance check will result in no rectification required. There will be a negative impact on safety here.
4. The ones who are likely to need rectification from these so called dangerous conditions are likely not to have caring owners or LAME's and are quite likely going to pencil whip the logs anyway, or not do anything at all just like the annuals that are not done year in and out. The cowboys will remain cowboys. There will be no gain in safety here.
There will be a butt load of money spent on unnecessary prop maintenance, diverting cash away from other more important maintenance or upgrades. Negative safety impact again. This could help tip people out of the industry altogether or at least mean they fly less if private pilots or less due higher cost less customers in commercial ops.
5. Net result is the cowboys that have allegedly provided the raw material and been picked up by a LAME or two will continue, the genuine honest hard working folk will get slugged thousands more by having maybe $10-20 added to their hourly costs and the only winners are the propellor shops. In summary;
Cowboys= no change as they don't care.
Vast majority of good guys = $5-20/hr more cost, bigger safety risk from MIF, anger and discust with entire industry.
Prop Shops= rubbing hands together, they have solved the down turn in numbers by gouging more from fewer
CASA= Don't Care because they are not required to but someone justified their existence and job.
My conspiracy theory is based on the same dirty tricks played by some avionics shop owners who pull strings in Canberra to justify some illogical and irrational things in recent years. Many of us know exactly who they are on both sides of the fence and what they got up to. This smells awfully similar. The trouble is they all cover their tracks well and very little makes in out in print. But enough does eventually that you know you have been pineappled but just can't prove it.
Leadsled/Creamie……do you want to prepare the draft response? I am happy to throw a few rocks
Points I see are,
1. Lack of data. There is no evidence to support this PAD at all, because CASA have not given us any at all to comment on. That evidence needs to be backed up with credible reports detailing who when and where.
2. The data needs to also have some research into how these props got to where they did in the first place. Otherwise it is facts in isolation. The old correlation not causation trick.
3. This PAD would only be complied with by good honest and caring aircraft owners who have either their own maintenance authority or a LAME that is likewise caring. Guess what……they are highly unlikely to have any problems so their compliance check will result in no rectification required. There will be a negative impact on safety here.
4. The ones who are likely to need rectification from these so called dangerous conditions are likely not to have caring owners or LAME's and are quite likely going to pencil whip the logs anyway, or not do anything at all just like the annuals that are not done year in and out. The cowboys will remain cowboys. There will be no gain in safety here.
There will be a butt load of money spent on unnecessary prop maintenance, diverting cash away from other more important maintenance or upgrades. Negative safety impact again. This could help tip people out of the industry altogether or at least mean they fly less if private pilots or less due higher cost less customers in commercial ops.
5. Net result is the cowboys that have allegedly provided the raw material and been picked up by a LAME or two will continue, the genuine honest hard working folk will get slugged thousands more by having maybe $10-20 added to their hourly costs and the only winners are the propellor shops. In summary;
Cowboys= no change as they don't care.
Vast majority of good guys = $5-20/hr more cost, bigger safety risk from MIF, anger and discust with entire industry.
Prop Shops= rubbing hands together, they have solved the down turn in numbers by gouging more from fewer
CASA= Don't Care because they are not required to but someone justified their existence and job.
My conspiracy theory is based on the same dirty tricks played by some avionics shop owners who pull strings in Canberra to justify some illogical and irrational things in recent years. Many of us know exactly who they are on both sides of the fence and what they got up to. This smells awfully similar. The trouble is they all cover their tracks well and very little makes in out in print. But enough does eventually that you know you have been pineappled but just can't prove it.
Leadsled/Creamie……do you want to prepare the draft response?
I am happy to throw a few rocks
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Omg no data. I suggest you read the manufactures SB regrading o/h time limits.
Casa has zero right to go outside these guild lines. Now they will throw their hands up and revert to manufactures time limits.
They push every engineer to carry out maintence IAW. There is a difference between a2 and the sb. Simple get out of goal for casa is to revert to manufactures. End of they story. But of course you will all know better than both casa and the manufactures or is it a conspicuous conspiracy by the prop shops.
Next will be as eng 5 and pt6 eng o/h time so don't feel your being picked on
Casa has zero right to go outside these guild lines. Now they will throw their hands up and revert to manufactures time limits.
They push every engineer to carry out maintence IAW. There is a difference between a2 and the sb. Simple get out of goal for casa is to revert to manufactures. End of they story. But of course you will all know better than both casa and the manufactures or is it a conspicuous conspiracy by the prop shops.
Next will be as eng 5 and pt6 eng o/h time so don't feel your being picked on
But yr right, I believe I am already compelled to comply with the manufacturer's life and I do. This appears to be over and above those requirements.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You at present can comply with ethier the ad or manufactures. One example is a prop under manufactures is a life off 2000 hours or 72 months. Under the ad is 1500 hours and no time life limit. It your choice which u comply with.
Under this amendment you will have to comply with manufactures or other parts in the ad. Straight forward really. O/h at manufactures or remove and inspect. Simple
Under this amendment you will have to comply with manufactures or other parts in the ad. Straight forward really. O/h at manufactures or remove and inspect. Simple
No Justification
The supposed justification for this AD states:
Amendment 3 is required due to information received through the CASA Service Difficulty Reporting system and other reports indicating that propellers that are presented for repair/ overhaul at extended calendar times commonly exhibit defects that compromise the flight safety of aircraft. The most common defects relate to excessive corrosion to the hub and blade areas and significant wear of the components of controllable propellers due to seal degradation and subsequent oil loss.
However a quick review of the SDR reports reveals that there have only been 13 incidents involving corrosion of propellers in the last 10 years. Of those only two have calendar times recorded (both past 6 years). 1 of these is for "minor surface corrosion of the blades" - hardly a case for overhaul.
Of the other reports without calendar times 2 are Hamilton standard props of a model unlikely to be on a non-commercial aircraft and thus following manufacturers limits. So no trend of propellers >6 years having greater rates of corrosion than props <6 years.
In the same time period the SDR reports include 27 cases of MIF resulting from prop removal or overhaul, roughly double the rate of corrosion induced failures. Since this is in the same fleet doing the same hours this is a good comparison. Seems to indicate that a removal of the need to overhaul altogether would produce better safety outcomes.
I am yet to look at the cases of "seal failure" to justify this AD but expect they will not be excessive and will mostly have been identified during routine maintenance - big oil leaks are hard to miss!
If anyone would like a copy of the data after I have compiled it in a couple of days (JABA I know you are a numbers man) just drop me a PM.
This alone should pose a good comment to the proposed AD.
Amendment 3 is required due to information received through the CASA Service Difficulty Reporting system and other reports indicating that propellers that are presented for repair/ overhaul at extended calendar times commonly exhibit defects that compromise the flight safety of aircraft. The most common defects relate to excessive corrosion to the hub and blade areas and significant wear of the components of controllable propellers due to seal degradation and subsequent oil loss.
However a quick review of the SDR reports reveals that there have only been 13 incidents involving corrosion of propellers in the last 10 years. Of those only two have calendar times recorded (both past 6 years). 1 of these is for "minor surface corrosion of the blades" - hardly a case for overhaul.
Of the other reports without calendar times 2 are Hamilton standard props of a model unlikely to be on a non-commercial aircraft and thus following manufacturers limits. So no trend of propellers >6 years having greater rates of corrosion than props <6 years.
In the same time period the SDR reports include 27 cases of MIF resulting from prop removal or overhaul, roughly double the rate of corrosion induced failures. Since this is in the same fleet doing the same hours this is a good comparison. Seems to indicate that a removal of the need to overhaul altogether would produce better safety outcomes.
I am yet to look at the cases of "seal failure" to justify this AD but expect they will not be excessive and will mostly have been identified during routine maintenance - big oil leaks are hard to miss!
If anyone would like a copy of the data after I have compiled it in a couple of days (JABA I know you are a numbers man) just drop me a PM.
This alone should pose a good comment to the proposed AD.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Yaawwwn.
Is this another CASA Bonanza/Baron elevator cable type AD?
You know.. the one where the problem only occurs in Australia with our huge GA aircraft fleet.. and that you never see in places like..um well.. the USA for example.. where there is bugger all GA aircraft .. and the few that do exist there are less than 5 years old.
Is this another CASA Bonanza/Baron elevator cable type AD?
You know.. the one where the problem only occurs in Australia with our huge GA aircraft fleet.. and that you never see in places like..um well.. the USA for example.. where there is bugger all GA aircraft .. and the few that do exist there are less than 5 years old.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said. Who is casa. What gives casa the right to go over manufactures o/h limits. That's what would be asked of in a court. It's all about liability honestly can't you folk see that. It's about limiting casa. Nothing more nothing less. It's all about IAW.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said. Who is casa. What gives casa the right to go over manufactures o/h limits. That's what would be asked of in a court. It's all about liability honestly can't you folk see that. It's about limiting casa. Nothing more nothing less. It's all about IAW.
It's the scaremongers leading the timorous leading the arse-coverers leading the cossetted busy-workers.
Progressive nailed it. Amazing what an objective analysis of facts and data show.
Remind me what country most of the propellor manufacturers come from, and what that country mandates.
The difficulty in resisting this one, in comparison with e.g. the Angel Flight knee jerk, is that there is no political reason not to implement it.
Progressive nailed it. Amazing what an objective analysis of facts and data show.
Remind me what country most of the propellor manufacturers come from, and what that country mandates.
The difficulty in resisting this one, in comparison with e.g. the Angel Flight knee jerk, is that there is no political reason not to implement it.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my reading of the Proposed Amendment 3 to the Prop AD, it appears the regulator is being lenient, reference the 6 year inspection as an option for private owner/operators.
But then again I don't know much about prop issues.
Perhaps as Yr Right states, get it done IAW OEM data and Bob's your Aunty.
Just received the proposal for update of CAO100.5, to incorporate maintenance from other regulations. Looks like in preparation for Part 135 etc operations. The Caravan will have to be maintained ASEPTA for all pax carrying ops.
But then again I don't know much about prop issues.
Perhaps as Yr Right states, get it done IAW OEM data and Bob's your Aunty.
Just received the proposal for update of CAO100.5, to incorporate maintenance from other regulations. Looks like in preparation for Part 135 etc operations. The Caravan will have to be maintained ASEPTA for all pax carrying ops.