Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the leadie.
Please inform us all the difference between a class A and class B maintenance schedule.
Also try now to get an engine extension with out having a program already in place.
The new only extension I know of at this current time which anyone can use is on the PT6. This is AD eng 5. You can purchase a Stc extension program though.
Please inform us all the difference between a class A and class B maintenance schedule.
Also try now to get an engine extension with out having a program already in place.
The new only extension I know of at this current time which anyone can use is on the PT6. This is AD eng 5. You can purchase a Stc extension program though.
Leadie, thank you for your comments, Ive been out of it for a while. Yes there were a number of old LAMES in grey cardigans who condition monitored fuel flow/vibration and performance parameters in my day but they did it on graph paper and almost always generally got it right - changing out an engine or module at just the right time.
As for "on condition" that was where there was a simple Yes/no question regarding replacement and by definition, no safety of flight critical performance item except perhaps windshield wipers and tyres was on that list.
Hard time, not sure what the rules are these days cycles, hours, landings, etc. I would have thought that by now we were doing real time time/temperature/rpm histories for disks.
As for "on condition" that was where there was a simple Yes/no question regarding replacement and by definition, no safety of flight critical performance item except perhaps windshield wipers and tyres was on that list.
Hard time, not sure what the rules are these days cycles, hours, landings, etc. I would have thought that by now we were doing real time time/temperature/rpm histories for disks.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie can you please also tell us how many aircraft you have places on the Australian regelation and how many log book statements you have done and while we at it how many system of maintenance you have done and had approved.
Thanx
Thanx
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Leadsled. Oh dear, well, anyway...........back to the topic,
Maybe it's not the answer that doesn't make sense but the question.
Maybe it shouldn't be "What" regulation, but rather who's, bear with me..
Fortunately for me, my AWI's and my correspondence from contacts in CASA
Are consistent. before you State that Yr Rgt is wrong about Car41, if he is being told by his AWI's, CASA contacts and so on, that that 'Includes' SB's, and they are the ones he must comply with, then according to the ones who allow his CofA and Licence, he is right!
At least in the eyes of the ones whom regulate him.
From my last correspondence, some choice phrases, which I have seen similar to
Others, most of which has been covered Ad nauseum!
"Schedule 5 is just a ‘shopping list’ of items, with no corresponding procedures, inspection techniques, limits, tolerances, or component overhaul limits. These specifics are found in the aircraft manufacturers maintenance data, which includes Service Bulletins, etc.."
And,
"LAMES are obliged under the requirements of CAR 42V, to carry out all maintenance in accordance with approved data. In addition, CAR 42V requires the incorporation of approved manufacturer’s instructions irrespective of which maintenance schedule is selected i.e. CAR 42A, CAR 42B or CAR 42C. CAR 42V ensures specific maintenance requirements, as identified by the manufacturer, cannot be ignored by registered operators who have selected CAR 42B CASA Schedule 5."
And,
"you are automatically obliged to follow all of the manufacturers requirements where they exist for specific requirements while signing off the items in Schedule 5."
Now, you can look at it however you wish, but if what your saying is (I think I got at least this much right!) there are no regs that specifically cover and make SB's Mandatory, what I'm telling you is they are referenced to within the scope of the approved Data, our AWI's tell us they are, my CASA contacts say they are, meaning
CASA's overall stance is they are.
That includes references to TCM's many SB, SL, SID, etc etc.
So my point is it doesn't seem so much "What" regulation, even though a fair minded person could look at the reference to all approved Data and take that to mean SB's as well, but "who's", because what I'm being continually told by the guys who are the ones who write the regs and enforce them is it is part of the overall approved Data.
Not sure why they can't use stronger wording than obliged, but there you have it.
The Mag issue should be pretty straight forward due to the SB following so closely the SM requirements, so maybe not a good example.
My goodness it would be so easy if CAR whatever stated MSB's are exactly that, and everything else advisory in nature, but i would hate to try defend not complying with even an advisory
Should anything untoward occur.
Maybe it's not the answer that doesn't make sense but the question.
Maybe it shouldn't be "What" regulation, but rather who's, bear with me..
Fortunately for me, my AWI's and my correspondence from contacts in CASA
Are consistent. before you State that Yr Rgt is wrong about Car41, if he is being told by his AWI's, CASA contacts and so on, that that 'Includes' SB's, and they are the ones he must comply with, then according to the ones who allow his CofA and Licence, he is right!
At least in the eyes of the ones whom regulate him.
From my last correspondence, some choice phrases, which I have seen similar to
Others, most of which has been covered Ad nauseum!
"Schedule 5 is just a ‘shopping list’ of items, with no corresponding procedures, inspection techniques, limits, tolerances, or component overhaul limits. These specifics are found in the aircraft manufacturers maintenance data, which includes Service Bulletins, etc.."
And,
"LAMES are obliged under the requirements of CAR 42V, to carry out all maintenance in accordance with approved data. In addition, CAR 42V requires the incorporation of approved manufacturer’s instructions irrespective of which maintenance schedule is selected i.e. CAR 42A, CAR 42B or CAR 42C. CAR 42V ensures specific maintenance requirements, as identified by the manufacturer, cannot be ignored by registered operators who have selected CAR 42B CASA Schedule 5."
And,
"you are automatically obliged to follow all of the manufacturers requirements where they exist for specific requirements while signing off the items in Schedule 5."
Now, you can look at it however you wish, but if what your saying is (I think I got at least this much right!) there are no regs that specifically cover and make SB's Mandatory, what I'm telling you is they are referenced to within the scope of the approved Data, our AWI's tell us they are, my CASA contacts say they are, meaning
CASA's overall stance is they are.
That includes references to TCM's many SB, SL, SID, etc etc.
So my point is it doesn't seem so much "What" regulation, even though a fair minded person could look at the reference to all approved Data and take that to mean SB's as well, but "who's", because what I'm being continually told by the guys who are the ones who write the regs and enforce them is it is part of the overall approved Data.
Not sure why they can't use stronger wording than obliged, but there you have it.
The Mag issue should be pretty straight forward due to the SB following so closely the SM requirements, so maybe not a good example.
My goodness it would be so easy if CAR whatever stated MSB's are exactly that, and everything else advisory in nature, but i would hate to try defend not complying with even an advisory
Should anything untoward occur.
Last edited by Perspective; 8th Jun 2015 at 14:25.
Perspective,
What we are seeing here is what is wrong with aviation in Australia, commonly referred to as "rule by law", and not "rule of law".
To try and understand the difference, Google Robin Speed and the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, an organisation established by some leading lawyers in Sydney.
To be clear, SIDs are quite distinct to SBs or Sls. The Cessna SIDs are part of the Cessna MMs, making then mandatory under our law.
As for what the law actually says, I could quote a number of my colleagues of the ALAANZ, all of whom have forgotten more about aviation law than yr wotisname and all of his mates put together, and these colleagues have one thing in common, they have never produced a MR in their lives, most of them will have never put a spanner on an aircraft.
Having grease under your fingernails is no qualification to claim definitive expertise in Australia's convoluted, contradictory aviation law?I don't think so.
However, the sad matter is that the AWIs etc have mostly come from industry, and have the same confused idea of what the law actually is, as they have absorbed erroneous shibboleths since apprenticeship days, CASA in-service training doesn't help. Some of it is, legally, quite wrong, some just misleading. I know, I have sat in on some of it, induction training for new AWIs and recurrent for existing AWIs.
The further sad matter is that so many in the aviation field, or GA anyway, in recent years, have come to accept what you would never accept from the police if it was an automobile ---- the imposition of fines and license action ---- based on the opinion of the policeman as to what the law is, as opposed to being based on evidence and the actual law---- and the industry in general has been too spineless to stop what is going on.
Are some of you trying to say that the law, as it applies to SBs, says one thing for GA and another thing for airlines --- because, believe me, incorporation of SBs or SLs is the decision of the Registered Operator in the airline world, not a mandatory requirement. Legally it is the same for everybody.
Yr er er er,
I suggest you update on what "return to service" currently means -now, not what you thought it did, in the past. But you probably had it wrong then, too!!
Just to throw in a bit of burlie, there is a very strong legal case to say that the C.of A of most US made small aircraft on the Australian register are invalid, because they do not conform to their type design.
They are invalid, because the AU C.of A is dependent on the US C.of A being valid, thus the AU Type Acceptance being valid, and that is not the case, because these aircraft are not being maintained in accordance with the type design and manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness.
There is, actually, a way around this problem, how to conduct US acceptable continuing airworthiness programs under Australian regulations.
Just a hint:
If the above came from CASA, I am not surprised, because it, wherever it came from, reveals the lamentable ignorance, practical and legal, of whoever made it. Including the incorrect statement about SBs.
Schedule 5 is, in fact, an almost word for word copy of FAA FAR 43, Appendix D, this is a fact of great significance to having a valid AU C.of A., but it only works if you understand the whole picture.
A Chocolate Frog (figuratively speaking) to the first to figure out the answer.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
That is a widespread opinion in CASA, it is not the law, as enacted by Parliament. I am not exactly short on the experience of developing regulations in this field, perhaps that is why I understand it.
What we are seeing here is what is wrong with aviation in Australia, commonly referred to as "rule by law", and not "rule of law".
To try and understand the difference, Google Robin Speed and the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, an organisation established by some leading lawyers in Sydney.
To be clear, SIDs are quite distinct to SBs or Sls. The Cessna SIDs are part of the Cessna MMs, making then mandatory under our law.
As for what the law actually says, I could quote a number of my colleagues of the ALAANZ, all of whom have forgotten more about aviation law than yr wotisname and all of his mates put together, and these colleagues have one thing in common, they have never produced a MR in their lives, most of them will have never put a spanner on an aircraft.
Having grease under your fingernails is no qualification to claim definitive expertise in Australia's convoluted, contradictory aviation law?I don't think so.
However, the sad matter is that the AWIs etc have mostly come from industry, and have the same confused idea of what the law actually is, as they have absorbed erroneous shibboleths since apprenticeship days, CASA in-service training doesn't help. Some of it is, legally, quite wrong, some just misleading. I know, I have sat in on some of it, induction training for new AWIs and recurrent for existing AWIs.
The further sad matter is that so many in the aviation field, or GA anyway, in recent years, have come to accept what you would never accept from the police if it was an automobile ---- the imposition of fines and license action ---- based on the opinion of the policeman as to what the law is, as opposed to being based on evidence and the actual law---- and the industry in general has been too spineless to stop what is going on.
Are some of you trying to say that the law, as it applies to SBs, says one thing for GA and another thing for airlines --- because, believe me, incorporation of SBs or SLs is the decision of the Registered Operator in the airline world, not a mandatory requirement. Legally it is the same for everybody.
Yr er er er,
I suggest you update on what "return to service" currently means -now, not what you thought it did, in the past. But you probably had it wrong then, too!!
Just to throw in a bit of burlie, there is a very strong legal case to say that the C.of A of most US made small aircraft on the Australian register are invalid, because they do not conform to their type design.
They are invalid, because the AU C.of A is dependent on the US C.of A being valid, thus the AU Type Acceptance being valid, and that is not the case, because these aircraft are not being maintained in accordance with the type design and manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness.
There is, actually, a way around this problem, how to conduct US acceptable continuing airworthiness programs under Australian regulations.
Just a hint:
"Schedule 5 is just a ‘shopping list’ of items, with no corresponding procedures, inspection techniques, limits, tolerances, or component overhaul limits. These specifics are found in the aircraft manufacturers maintenance data, which includes Service Bulletins, etc.."
Schedule 5 is, in fact, an almost word for word copy of FAA FAR 43, Appendix D, this is a fact of great significance to having a valid AU C.of A., but it only works if you understand the whole picture.
A Chocolate Frog (figuratively speaking) to the first to figure out the answer.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
because what I'm being continually told by the guys who are the ones who write the regs and enforce them is it is part of the overall approved Data.
Last edited by LeadSled; 8th Jun 2015 at 15:40.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So once again leadie you have not answered one question I gave you.
As for lawyers wtf. They have zero idea and understanding. I proved this in a Australian court of law.
As for the word recommend how come that' different from what I got back from Casa.
You like most that don't get your hands dirty seam to think you know it all. But in reality you actually don't. It one thing to read law another to understand it and yet another to actually use it and have it used against you
You like most are very brave when you don't have to sign anything.
Next under class A. It works on a system of maintenance. In its lbs. you must ADDRESS all sb msb si etc etc etc. also you must have a maintenance controller. Now the lame is NO longer at risk from prosecution if something is missed on the work pak. If you don't do a sb etc you must have a good reason not to. Don't confuse the issue between class a and b. They whist similar they not the same.
And stop quoting FAA req as well. They not as perfect as you make them out to be.
As for lawyers wtf. They have zero idea and understanding. I proved this in a Australian court of law.
As for the word recommend how come that' different from what I got back from Casa.
You like most that don't get your hands dirty seam to think you know it all. But in reality you actually don't. It one thing to read law another to understand it and yet another to actually use it and have it used against you
You like most are very brave when you don't have to sign anything.
Next under class A. It works on a system of maintenance. In its lbs. you must ADDRESS all sb msb si etc etc etc. also you must have a maintenance controller. Now the lame is NO longer at risk from prosecution if something is missed on the work pak. If you don't do a sb etc you must have a good reason not to. Don't confuse the issue between class a and b. They whist similar they not the same.
And stop quoting FAA req as well. They not as perfect as you make them out to be.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you have it, Yr Right, you can sign off your work as Carried out IAW Leadsled and be confident that you don't have to do any SBs. I'm sure Leadsled will go to court with you and dazzle everyone with his knowledge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So once again I'll ask you these questions leadie. You can answer lots or none. That makes it simple for you.
How many lbs have you written
How many aircraft have u placed on the Australian registerer
How many SOM have you had approved
How many M/R have you issued
How many Casa exams have you done in regards to law in the maintenance field.
How many court case have you been evolved with in the case of a maintenance issue.
Next
SIDS are in the m/m but refer to sb. True or not true
Next when did Allianz ever go to bat for an lame.
Next this is the most important of all.
Its because of people like yourself WE as lame have to do as in this example on this thread. Because of people like your self if it dose go pear shape poeple like your self are the first ones that head for a court.
How many lbs have you written
How many aircraft have u placed on the Australian registerer
How many SOM have you had approved
How many M/R have you issued
How many Casa exams have you done in regards to law in the maintenance field.
How many court case have you been evolved with in the case of a maintenance issue.
Next
SIDS are in the m/m but refer to sb. True or not true
Next when did Allianz ever go to bat for an lame.
Next this is the most important of all.
Its because of people like yourself WE as lame have to do as in this example on this thread. Because of people like your self if it dose go pear shape poeple like your self are the first ones that head for a court.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
See above, that does NOT make a OEM SB on a Class B aircraft component mandatory.
See above, that does NOT make a OEM SB on a Class B aircraft component mandatory.
Leadie should also talk to all of those doing mandatory exhaust valve SBs on lycoming piston engines, that they are wasting their time.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important thing is what is written in your LBS. even if it says shed 5 it most likely by now also quote sb msb etc have to be done as well. If it doesn't by now you have to change your lbs.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So once again leadie you have not answered one question I gave you.
How many lbs have you written
How many aircraft have u placed on the Australian registerer
How many SOM have you had approved
How many M/R have you issued
How many Casa exams have you done in regards to law in the maintenance field.
How many court case have you been evolved with in the case of a maintenance issue.
How many aircraft have u placed on the Australian registerer
How many SOM have you had approved
How many M/R have you issued
How many Casa exams have you done in regards to law in the maintenance field.
How many court case have you been evolved with in the case of a maintenance issue.
My guess is I have written a few more MR's than Leadsled ever has. A few less than you for sure. But that has nothing do with anything. It just means we know what things to write on a waxy horrible form!
The fact you were grilled in a civil case after a fatal prang, and I agree it was the pilots fault not yours, has nothing to do with knowing what the law says and means. The fact that many CASA FOI's and AWI's do not understand the laws and often screw up application of them is not surprising. But they can't all be correct when some are of differing opinion.
As for what judgements you have seen in court…….well I think we all know they are often flawed as well. And just because you have seen one opinion handed down does not in fact make it correct. Think Azaria Chamberlain.
If the court on the day is convinced by a CASA representative that recommended means mandatory, and the other side does not argue it well enough, then on that day in that court the opinion of one will prevail. Just like the earth was flat for many centuries……until……
All swans are white…..until they discovered black ones when the west of Van Diemans Land was found.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So leadie. You have previously stated that SIDS has to be done because it's in the m/m.
Well what about fuild hoses. Etc.
Magnetos note 5 model 210 series service manual states
Slick mags latest revision sb2-80c
Or bendix latest revision sb no 643.
Or is it leadie revision you don't have to worry about that. So what is it. Like going to the supermarket you just pick and choose what ever you wish
Well what about fuild hoses. Etc.
Magnetos note 5 model 210 series service manual states
Slick mags latest revision sb2-80c
Or bendix latest revision sb no 643.
Or is it leadie revision you don't have to worry about that. So what is it. Like going to the supermarket you just pick and choose what ever you wish
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, I was referring to "TCM's many SB, SL, SID," not SIDS. But point taken. As I say, if the SB is highlighting the MM requirements it is also by default
mandatory.
mandatory.
Last edited by Perspective; 8th Jun 2015 at 23:57.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba I'll answer the rest of your questions shorty.
But first and foremost this needs to be stated.
I have never been taken to Court for an aviation accident or incident.
In fact the accident I was envoled with I never as the co-ordenting lame and m/r issuer I never got a call from Casa. The police. The Feds. The coroner. No one called me.
This was because of two reasons
1st the employer look after their lames and was a 1stclass maintenance org that done the right thing.
2nd was the maintenance carried out was done right. To the point that the poeple that recovered the wreck over heard basi saying the best condition of the aircraft type that they had seen.
In fact they found only one thing wrong with the aircraft and this was proven to had be done by the owners.
Now I have been called to court for aviation matters. This has been as an expert witness. I gave evidence and I was not the grillee in fact I was the griller. I made the Casa legal team look like a brunch of preschool kids. Why because like you. You treat me with contempt and realizing that although I may have problems with letters that dose not mean my mind is and my abilities are in any way affected. And what did I beat Casa on. Aviation law.
But first and foremost this needs to be stated.
I have never been taken to Court for an aviation accident or incident.
In fact the accident I was envoled with I never as the co-ordenting lame and m/r issuer I never got a call from Casa. The police. The Feds. The coroner. No one called me.
This was because of two reasons
1st the employer look after their lames and was a 1stclass maintenance org that done the right thing.
2nd was the maintenance carried out was done right. To the point that the poeple that recovered the wreck over heard basi saying the best condition of the aircraft type that they had seen.
In fact they found only one thing wrong with the aircraft and this was proven to had be done by the owners.
Now I have been called to court for aviation matters. This has been as an expert witness. I gave evidence and I was not the grillee in fact I was the griller. I made the Casa legal team look like a brunch of preschool kids. Why because like you. You treat me with contempt and realizing that although I may have problems with letters that dose not mean my mind is and my abilities are in any way affected. And what did I beat Casa on. Aviation law.
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
Don't lead with your chin yr right or the CAsA pre school kids may come knocking on your door to give you some lessons in homework humility.
Regarding dirty fingernails, think about those pre school kids who wrote the bloody laws and how many times they've looked under the bonnet of their Lexus.
EDIT: ELP tests seem wanting in some regard. Do glasses help.
Regarding dirty fingernails, think about those pre school kids who wrote the bloody laws and how many times they've looked under the bonnet of their Lexus.
EDIT: ELP tests seem wanting in some regard. Do glasses help.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll frank. I'm guessing my file has a big red x on it. I have several get out of goal free passes if they ever wish to come along knocking on my door.
One thing is I'm not scared of Casa. I do the right thing always have. They can't say the same. I have that up my sleeve.
One thing is I'm not scared of Casa. I do the right thing always have. They can't say the same. I have that up my sleeve.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr kidding me……..coming from YOU! The master of never answering sensible straight and direct questions. Unbelievable!!
As I said to you then and I will repeat myself. I answered nearly all your questions expect the questions where data was required and I didn't have that data in the middle of the desert at that time
Your usual feather ruffling to create an illusion that these very actions somehow make a person an expert at understanding either LAW as it applies,or the laws of physics.
No not ruffled any ones feathers with exception to those misleading with in correct facts.
My guess is I have written a few more MR's than Leadsled ever has. A few less than you for sure. But that has nothing do with anything. It just means we know what things to write on a waxy horrible form!
So dose that mean you have actually issued a m/r
The fact you were grilled in a civil case after a fatal prang, and I agree it was the pilots fault not yours, has nothing to do with knowing what the law says and means. The fact that many CASA FOI's and AWI's do not understand the laws and often screw up application of them is not surprising. But they can't all be correct when some are of differing opinion.
Already answered this question. Perhaps in future you may pm me before you shot yourself in the foot and defame someone.
As for what judgements you have seen in court…….well I think we all know they are often flawed as well. And just because you have seen one opinion handed down does not in fact make it correct. Think Azaria Chamberlain.
If the court on the day is convinced by a CASA representative that recommended means mandatory, and the other side does not argue it well enough, then on that day in that court the opinion of one will prevail. Just like the earth was flat for many centuries……until…… All swans are white…..until they discovered black ones when the west of Van Diemans Land was found.
As I said to you then and I will repeat myself. I answered nearly all your questions expect the questions where data was required and I didn't have that data in the middle of the desert at that time
Your usual feather ruffling to create an illusion that these very actions somehow make a person an expert at understanding either LAW as it applies,or the laws of physics.
No not ruffled any ones feathers with exception to those misleading with in correct facts.
My guess is I have written a few more MR's than Leadsled ever has. A few less than you for sure. But that has nothing do with anything. It just means we know what things to write on a waxy horrible form!
So dose that mean you have actually issued a m/r
The fact you were grilled in a civil case after a fatal prang, and I agree it was the pilots fault not yours, has nothing to do with knowing what the law says and means. The fact that many CASA FOI's and AWI's do not understand the laws and often screw up application of them is not surprising. But they can't all be correct when some are of differing opinion.
Already answered this question. Perhaps in future you may pm me before you shot yourself in the foot and defame someone.
As for what judgements you have seen in court…….well I think we all know they are often flawed as well. And just because you have seen one opinion handed down does not in fact make it correct. Think Azaria Chamberlain.
If the court on the day is convinced by a CASA representative that recommended means mandatory, and the other side does not argue it well enough, then on that day in that court the opinion of one will prevail. Just like the earth was flat for many centuries……until……
All swans are white…..until they discovered black ones when the west of Van Diemans Land was found. Now leadie by the way. Engine o/h for both tcm and lyc are both SIL and not Sb
Last edited by yr right; 9th Jun 2015 at 04:55.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You treat me with contempt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr Right!!
Just as I suspected...
Quite clearly you are not only a LAME but a person who has historically been subjected to court experiences which have no doubt over time collectively enhanced your ability to interpret, analyse and present Aviation law as related to the relevant matter to which you had been called to give evidence as an expert witness to the extent that a court will not only accept your evidence but allow you to be the "griller" I presume of other witnesses.
I can only guess that those witnesses are now better persons as a result of their interaction with you during that process.
I think you are wasted as a LAME and should maybe direct your vast knowledge and experience of aviation related LAME and associated law matters towards the court more often.
Just a thought anyway,
Stiky
Just as I suspected...
Now I have been called to court for aviation matters. This has been as an expert witness. I gave evidence and I was not the grillee in fact I was the griller
I made the Casa legal team look like a brunch of preschool kids.
And what did I beat Casa on. Aviation law.
I can only guess that those witnesses are now better persons as a result of their interaction with you during that process.
I think you are wasted as a LAME and should maybe direct your vast knowledge and experience of aviation related LAME and associated law matters towards the court more often.
Just a thought anyway,
Stiky
