Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?

[Jabawocky]

And then once he has a law degree and a degree in aeronautical engineering, and built a really fancy engine test facility he can go to the USA and teach the FAA, and George Braly all about it and why the APS class is full of BS. And maybe redesign the Gamijectors, TAT systems and perhaps the Ted Smith Aerostar….which is bound to be designed wrong.

We will have to rewrite 2.5 days of class notes

Hey Sticky, Two lawyers with aeronautical engineering backgrounds I consider really good friends of mine (you know them ). If your proposal gets legs I might have to add a third.

[yr right]

I take it you were referring to the clown that ran and flew his engine with a cylinder with 0/80 even though the m/m says not too. The same person that promotes a course with their own data even though their data is not approved. Promotes a course that is also not approved. Feeds miss truths about engine o/hs. Even though your own wife would not permit an org fly their workers using this data. The same people that will not admit that if the Wyala accident if he only place mixture full rich prop full fine then increased the power lever chances are he would have made it. ( and don't go on that that crank was cracked that is not relevant as it didn't fail).
Then calls me dangerous.
The cynical among us would thing that your Ivory tower was cut down by some two bit hick working in the middle of desert and it has upset the apple cart. And then you go on how you are going to help me. Well David I'm fine. I can think for myself. I see and have to repair the damage that occurs. I'm sorry I'm not a sheep. And I didn't say it at the time. But I was quite disappointed that you use my mate death to further your own cause. That was a real low. Then you accuse someone of having another cause to wind turbines. Even though you never meet or even talk to the person envoled.
You never released an aircraft. You never had your name on that m/r have you.
Yet even on this topic you are telling people not to do something that is required.
You pertray yourself as the grandmaster with aircraft engines. Accused me of not being a good trouble shooter. I gave you the opening to come here and I put myself up against your self. No engine mangment instruments. Just good old feel taste smell. As expected no response from your self. To be expected. Any can be a master when it is delivered on a plate.

So now back ont the issue at hand.
We used to have Ad hose 2 and 3. Now we don't have not had it since the late 90s. So how do we do engine and airframe hose changes and px texts. Or don't we. Because if you use the same thing as with the magnetos then they will never be done. Fact is a SB or Si etc is done so it's easier to change if required. This saves changing m/m.
At the end of the day it's easy to be brave when you take no responsibility and leave it for others to take. As as for your remark about court. So how many times have you been ask and gone to court in defense of someone in an aviation industry.
Some of use do some of use just talk. Which are you.

[Sunfish]

The fact that this thread even exists is representative of the utter damnation that is Australian Aviation regulation, constructed and administered by CASA.

I spent good money on a maintenance regulation course which demonstrated conclusively to me that the regulations applying to maintenance have nothing whatsoever to do with safety. They are more akin to making obeisance to the flying spaghetti monster than attempting to give effect to the James Reason model of holes in cheese lining up.

Some may be surprised that the maintenance systems of airlines have nothing whatsoever to do with CASA, indeed CASA wouldn't even comprehend them (that from current players) and it wasn't much different in my day. CASA doesn't have the skills. experience or talent to regulate Qantas, etc. so they concentrate on easy low hanging fruit.

And CASA still get it wrong… In my opinion after seeing some structure of an aircraft I'd just spent touring for three weeks in…what a mess! And i'd been flying that! Where the f**k were you CASA?

What is wrong with using the FAA regs and removing this criminal liability bull****?

My aircraft is 90% complete, the barriers to first flight are regulatory and may well be insuperable. I have a veggie garden to build, overseas trips beckon and the thought of scenic flights around snowcapped mountains in my own aircraft is starting to drop in priority, in no small part thanks to Pprune.

I threaten my aircraft regularly with a chainsaw because I know that however hard I try to build it as a baby Boeing as I was taught, CASA can always find fault with it…. Fault with criminal penalties for the builder/maintainer.

[Aussie Bob]

I threaten my aircraft regularly with a chainsaw

Please finish it Sunfish! You will get around the hurdles ....

[yr right]

We'll try and work with regs on a daily basis.
Try and make sure you and your staff have done the right thing.
Then try and look after your costumer.
I will add this point as well. The poeple that push the lop courses. Their own words not mine. We have never been sued. So how do you take that. If you bashing your whole field that we never been sued is that good or bad.
We live with that every day. The regs are not clear at all. The been done to please the airlines and ex military personnel that have now taken over Casa. Faa not reqs really not that good. How ever they do issue a plain English set of reqs.
So where dose it leave the maintenance org. We have to do more than we wish. You all think we trying to rip everyone off. Well I challenge some of you to take a week off and go and work at your maintenance org and just see what it is like. Just a thought.
People are brave as I've said when they are not the ones that have to take responsibility for their actions and put pen to paper.
And as for Boeing lets just say they make great aircraft.

[yr right]

Leadie and Jaba
Under the same sb that has the yearly o/h it also states that 500 hourly magneto checks are to be c/o. So I take it you also suggesting that these also do not need to be complied with ?

[Eddie Dean]

It would appear, from reading previous posts, from the various posters on this thread that there are two types posting.
First are private owners who wish to maintain their aircraft to their own interpretation of the CASA regulations and wish to find the cheapest rather than the safest method for that maintenance.
The second are those that maintain aircraft in commercial operations and adhere to the regulations as advised by the AWI responsible for their C of A.

[Jabawocky]

First are private owners who wish to maintain their aircraft to their own interpretation of the CASA regulations and wish to find the cheapest rather than the safest method for that maintenance.

That could apply to some, but not most. I can speak for myself and the original poster here, we can afford and do spend almost limitless amounts on maintenance, brainy even more so than me, but it needs to be understood that throwing cash does not equal safe and at times it achieves the exact opposite.

The second are those that maintain aircraft in commercial operations and adhere to the regulations as advised by the AWI responsible for their C of A.

And the problem there is when there is too many wildly differing opinions of AWI's that do not know how to apply the regulations as per the law (and not their opinion) you get wildly conflicting standards across the country. Hence Brainy's questioning the LAME resulted in that LAME's AWI confirming Brainy's request was valid, and in difference to many on this thread.

When you fix that, and apply appropriate cash……everyone is as safe as practically possible, and happy.

I will respond to "yr rights" disgraceful post above later….when I get time.

[yr right]

That will be interesting.

[Frank Arouet]

Compliance means complying with the AWI's opinion of the rules.


It was said earlier that we have rule of regulation not rule of law. This fails to take into account the opinion by the prosecutor of those rules which varies and often to suit an agenda. This means all rules are unworkable.

[yr right]

What's I'm realizing the scary part is Jaba. Not only do you think you know more than the manufacturer but now your willing to go into a SB etc and dissect that data to what you wish or wish not to do. Then apply your views onto everyone else. Heavens above if they don't agree with you.
But easy to be brave when you don't have to sign for it.

[yr right]

Frank.
Remember Ad hose 2 & 3.

Was an Ad so had to be done now what. If you go by this post and what others see as their right. Hose now don't have to be done. Then what a bout fuel pumps. Or vac pumps. So unless their is a AD I guess nothing has to be carried out.
All because Casa is trying to obslove them self of liability.

[Frank Arouet]

I don't know what I'm buying into here, but I'll play a while until I get bored.

If I give you my Maule for an annual inspection I expect that aircraft will be fit to fly and indeed, it may be argued, fit for the next 12 months or 100 hours.

Notwithstanding I have a signed letter from The Deputy Prime Minister/ Transport Minister of the day to say a maintenance release cannot be relied upon to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft, I maintain it satisfies the requirements of the FOI who may ramp check me to see if in fact I have signed the daily inspection on that document that tells me it is fit to fly... with me so far? Well, I fly off and a hose bursts, oil goes everywhere and... just say, the engine seizes and is a write off... Who am I going to sue?

Correct, the bloke I paid the money to. You as the servant have a duty of care to me to make sure you don't put my life at risk. You carry the can. You are liable. You are the bloke who has this duty, not because CAsA or some other school kid with a Lexus who wrote some laws as to what you can't do instead of what you can do... You mate, buddy... old chap.

Because it's not writ large what you may do, do you assume you don't have to do it?

AD's for hoses in absentia do not an inspection for Mrs Arouets little boy make. It's common law in which court you will find yourself justly explaining things, not the AAT, (which appears to be the only court CAsA practice ((pric-tease)) in).

CAsA have absolved themselves from liability old chap. Nobody can write as many words as that mob and not be free of any liability.

This free advice given by Frank Arouet, Bush Lawyer, CAsA victim, Political Urger and part time Roo shooter and Choko grower.

Use it wisely before the real lawyers stick it up both of us.

[yr right]

Yes frank. It's easy to be brave when you can plam it off to someone else when it goes pear shaped and you never put pen to paper.

[Brainy]

Well this thread has grown malignant little legs of its own…

Surely the LAME's only responsibility is to perform the work requested of them (by the person responsible for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft) to the best of their ability, and for that standard to be competent at least. If it doesn't meet that standard, they are liable for the deficiencies arising and the potential consequences. No more and no less. Similar to my industry, patients are ultimately responsible for their own continued health, they choose whether or not to have a particular operation (there are no mandatory overhauls) and my responsibility is to perform it correctly. If I don't and they suffer impairment or adverse consequence as a result, who is liable? Me, as the person performing the work. Why would anyone lose any sleep over any of that - presumably we all strive to to a good job, and we all keep the insurance industry afloat by paying hefty premiums to insure ourselves. If the registered operator chooses not to follow a non-mandatory manufacturer's SB, the buck should stop with them, not the LAME. I do not believe that the law sees it otherwise. If I recommend that a patient has an operation (I can't mandate it), but they choose not to, they lose control of their car due to their weak arm / wonky eye / insert failed body part here and crash into a school bus full of children with haemophilia, who carries the blame?

I think this thread has reached its manufacturer's specified life limit.

[Frank Arouet]

Hit EDIT DELETE


You have the power. Assume that responsibility as a model to all of us and...touche'

[Eddie Dean]

Surely the LAME's only responsibility is to perform the work requested of them (by the person responsible for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft)

Surely you jest. Or misunderstand the intent of the CASA requirements for continuing airworthiness.
I would also be interested in talking to the AWI who told you that only part of SB643 was applicable to your aircraft. PM me his details if it wasn't in confidence, as this is a direct contradiction to both western aust and far north QLD interpretation

[yr right]

And here lays the big problem. The lack of knowledge that the general aviation comunity has with what the legal position of a lame is. Unless it is a class A or in some but not all class B with a maintenance controller the coordination of each category is the responsibility of that certifying lame.
Serval years ago there was a push that ALL maintenance org had a contract with the owner operator that the maintenance org took responsibility for the maintenance of the aircraft. This was to stop exactly this

[Brainy]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dean

Surely you jest. Or misunderstand the intent of the CASA requirements for continuing airworthiness.
I would also be interested in talking to the AWI who told you that only part of SB643 was applicable to your aircraft. PM me his details if it wasn't in confidence, as this is a direct contradiction to both western aust and far north QLD interpretation

Misunderstand perhaps, but jest I do not. However, I am expressing my opinion, not legal fact. I don't expect others' opinions to align with mine, but I'm cool with that. We've had multiple pages of varying opinions, some intelligible some less so, but still not one demonstration of fact that the overhaul of bendix magnetos on calendar time is a mandatory requirement. As to SB643, one does not have to comply with ANY of it. Don't ask your AWI 'do we have to comply with the calendar overhaul of these magnetos?' but rather ask 'are all the manufacturers' SBs now mandatory?'. You might very well get 2 different answers. I have it in writing from CASA that compliance with a SB (that is not incorporated into the aircraft service manual) is not mandatory, and following the advice in the bulletin should be considered by the registered operator, who is responsible for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. Do you have written advice to the contrary?

[LeadSled]

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.

Well, folks, yr rrrr has actually got it right, sort of.
As he says above (effectively) you consider SBs by whatever name but it is not mandatory to carry them out, it is a decision of the Registered Operator. At last he admits SB are not mandatory.

I have made no distinction between Class A and Class B, nor is there a difference as far as SBs are concerned. In fact, legally, every Australian registered aircraft must be maintained to a CASA approved maintenance schedule. You have choices, but in the end, the result will be "CASA Approved".

yr rrrrr wrong,
You have no idea who I am or what my aviation background is, but I can say, without fear of contradiction, I have spent a career signing my name to various bits of aviation paperwork, which carry potentially great personal liability. In general. much greater potential personal liability than anything a LAME is ever going to sign.

Some of that has been very directly maintenance related, and at times I have had to wash my hands so that I didn't get big greasy fingermarks on the MR. Such signatures were and are based on the rights and privileges of my aviation professional qualification.

Brainy,
As I have said in a previous post, you have got it right.

As a matter of interest, yr rrrrr wrong's attitude is rare but far from unique amongst LAMEs.

There is a very interesting Flight Safety Foundation study of attitudes of ATC, pilots and LAME in Australia, the mutual contempt each group has towards the other two is quite unique to Australia, just another part of the reason why Australia has a such a poor air safety record, compared to the USA.

I think yr rrrr wrong probably has a balanced personality. a chip in both shoulders.

Somebody said: " You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts". Clearly, many in the aviation field believe they are exempt from this fact.

Tootle pip!!