Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
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.
Is there no data from the manufacturer?
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 97 Likes
on
56 Posts
I think this thread has reached its manufacturer's specified life limit.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the actual difference in maintenance between certain aircraft on ether class A or B may be similar. The certifcation and the record keeping between the two is chalk and cheese. So Bill you are totally incorrect.
As for doing Sb it's clearly defined in the caap.
Also your account for not doing SB in class A once again is in correct.
I have never seen a class A aircraft lbs that's omits doing Sb etc.
as you keep going on about the difference in safety between USA and Australia please define. Don't place maintenance safety in with flying. Maintenance here is as safe if not better than the USA. And yes I been and worked in the USA as well as other countries.
And considering some of what that's come out of the states it's a wonder they even fly.
As for doing Sb it's clearly defined in the caap.
Also your account for not doing SB in class A once again is in correct.
I have never seen a class A aircraft lbs that's omits doing Sb etc.
as you keep going on about the difference in safety between USA and Australia please define. Don't place maintenance safety in with flying. Maintenance here is as safe if not better than the USA. And yes I been and worked in the USA as well as other countries.
And considering some of what that's come out of the states it's a wonder they even fly.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well bill that's your choice. But your just typical of type. I'm happy to stand by repartition and my knowledge in the industry. If I was sooooo bad I guess I would not still be working in the industry especially 35 odd years after I started. And gee I sure I would have been pulled up by Awi's by now. Bugger me I haven't.
And you being where you was. I leave you with one word. Bates.
And you being where you was. I leave you with one word. Bates.
Yes Horatio, that would include the Service Bulletins and Service Instructions
The first paragraph of SB643B states:
(my bolding).
Whilst it is a few years since I worked with Australian Rules, I cannot see how a LAME can get around that statement. Where I work that means I am obliged to comply with the SB.
The following information constitutes the manufacturer’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and outlines required maintenance, inspection, cleaning and overhaul intervals of the TCM and Bendix magnetos and related equipment listed under "EquipmentAffected"
Whilst it is a few years since I worked with Australian Rules, I cannot see how a LAME can get around that statement. Where I work that means I am obliged to comply with the SB.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have it in writing from CASA that compliance with a SB (that is not incorporated into the aircraft service manual) is not mandatory,
----- as you keep going on about the difference in safety between USA and Australia please define.
The published statistics, using publicly available figures, are quite clear, and indeed the deterioration in the Australian GA record compared to the US has recently been remarked.
Using ICAO stand definitions for accidents and incidents, Australia's GA accident rate has deteriorated, in the last 15 years, from double the US rate to three times the US rate, in round figures.
The changes are so clear and distinct that any arguments about "statistically insignificance " cannot be sustained.
I have no intention of putting the HC transport here, look it up for yourselves, suffice to say that in every statistical category, the US produces the world's best aviation safety outcomes, and has done for years.
They must be doing something right.
I note with some interest that nobody has taken up my challenge as to whether many Australian C.of A are valid. All you blokes talking about liability for signatories, I would have thought that signing out an MR if the C. of A was not valid would have raised some liability concerns.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Leadsled re statistical differences of accident rates US to here,
You would have to get a pretty detailed breakdown I would imagine to identify
Any underlying reasons, (I know stating the obvious), lack of hours-currency? Do they include LSA in their figures?
Oh Man..this goes on and on! (I feel a collective Sigh there somewhere!)
It seems no matter what document, link or CASA reference, Reg, advisory, letter, Order or publication that gets posted here, advising, obligating, obliging, insinuating, inferring or directing you to carry out tasks I.a.w. The approved maintenance data, along with our AWI's and senior Engineers directions (and yes Brainy, correspondence) and enforcement of said Data, Regs etc, I can't believe there exists such a strong belief that the inference is that these things need not be either referred to or followed, or would not attract some legal ramification.
Put simply, if you can show me anywhere where it simply breaks down and states in clear, unambiguous black and white writing, an SB, as apposed to an MSB is approved Data, but one I must comply and one is optional, I'll send you flowers.
I can read, (barely) I know one states Mandatory and one just SB. Obviously. but the regs don't break the compliance down to anything simpler than All Approved Data.
The Mag is a bad example due to it being in and per the MM anyway.
Take for instance, as an example, just two of many directions,
1,-3.4 The procedures specified in the approved maintenance data detailing how maintenance is to be performed must be complied with when using the CAA Maintenance Schedule.
2,-6-6.1 If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional.
So no probs, I'll just go to that approved Data for that Piper Arrow I'm maintaining to see if they give me an option, in the Data, which I've been directed to, god knows how many times, in the Data, clear and concise please,
So I get to Paragraph 3-8 under special inspections section,
SERVICE PUBLICATION COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. Piper service Publications are recommended and/or Mandatory changes to piper aircraft. "Piper service bulletins are of special importance and Piper considers compliance mandatory.
Did they mean all, some, FFS Piper!
Look for any other wording or inference in the MM for clarification, find under
General in their own Table of Insp in the sign off, general, "All manufacturers service bulletins and letters complied with" FFS.
It is clear by those two statements alone that piper consider SB"s and even SL's mandatory. They just referred to it twice, and probably more, That's in the approved maintenance Data that I have had to refer to.
Someone stated it's the Regs that seem to be unworkable, and in the current format maybe they are.
You may be a master of Law, but I find it hard to believe that when so much Wording and direction from CASA and the manufacturer, states in black and white we must use, follow and abide by the limits set out and approved by the manufacturer, that for me to knowingly not follow that is anything other than negligent.
I can take being called a muppet but find it hard to understand how one can speak from such a position of superiority and confidence and advice to non-conformance with such matters as CASA regulation, when so much Data and direction exists to state the opposite, someone even suggesting we grow some Balls. Nice.
I'm happy to talk about a common sense approach to maintenance so long as it stays within the requirements of the Regs, as they stand, as they are understood or interpreted by my delegates and as they are enforced by them,
However you want to term it.
You would have to get a pretty detailed breakdown I would imagine to identify
Any underlying reasons, (I know stating the obvious), lack of hours-currency? Do they include LSA in their figures?
Oh Man..this goes on and on! (I feel a collective Sigh there somewhere!)
It seems no matter what document, link or CASA reference, Reg, advisory, letter, Order or publication that gets posted here, advising, obligating, obliging, insinuating, inferring or directing you to carry out tasks I.a.w. The approved maintenance data, along with our AWI's and senior Engineers directions (and yes Brainy, correspondence) and enforcement of said Data, Regs etc, I can't believe there exists such a strong belief that the inference is that these things need not be either referred to or followed, or would not attract some legal ramification.
Put simply, if you can show me anywhere where it simply breaks down and states in clear, unambiguous black and white writing, an SB, as apposed to an MSB is approved Data, but one I must comply and one is optional, I'll send you flowers.
I can read, (barely) I know one states Mandatory and one just SB. Obviously. but the regs don't break the compliance down to anything simpler than All Approved Data.
The Mag is a bad example due to it being in and per the MM anyway.
Take for instance, as an example, just two of many directions,
1,-3.4 The procedures specified in the approved maintenance data detailing how maintenance is to be performed must be complied with when using the CAA Maintenance Schedule.
2,-6-6.1 If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional.
So no probs, I'll just go to that approved Data for that Piper Arrow I'm maintaining to see if they give me an option, in the Data, which I've been directed to, god knows how many times, in the Data, clear and concise please,
So I get to Paragraph 3-8 under special inspections section,
SERVICE PUBLICATION COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. Piper service Publications are recommended and/or Mandatory changes to piper aircraft. "Piper service bulletins are of special importance and Piper considers compliance mandatory.
Did they mean all, some, FFS Piper!
Look for any other wording or inference in the MM for clarification, find under
General in their own Table of Insp in the sign off, general, "All manufacturers service bulletins and letters complied with" FFS.
It is clear by those two statements alone that piper consider SB"s and even SL's mandatory. They just referred to it twice, and probably more, That's in the approved maintenance Data that I have had to refer to.
Someone stated it's the Regs that seem to be unworkable, and in the current format maybe they are.
You may be a master of Law, but I find it hard to believe that when so much Wording and direction from CASA and the manufacturer, states in black and white we must use, follow and abide by the limits set out and approved by the manufacturer, that for me to knowingly not follow that is anything other than negligent.
I can take being called a muppet but find it hard to understand how one can speak from such a position of superiority and confidence and advice to non-conformance with such matters as CASA regulation, when so much Data and direction exists to state the opposite, someone even suggesting we grow some Balls. Nice.
I'm happy to talk about a common sense approach to maintenance so long as it stays within the requirements of the Regs, as they stand, as they are understood or interpreted by my delegates and as they are enforced by them,
However you want to term it.
Last edited by Perspective; 10th Jun 2015 at 15:50.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone earlier said on how the judge feels on the day. Wrong. They have rules as well. And as for the word recommend as I've said before in court that means you have to do it. Why because it's already gone to court and that's what was determined.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=LeadSled;9006627]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 did not say that. I said you address the SB. That means you look at it. Your aircraft s# may not be affected you then have addressed the sb. Please tel me why in the later Casa log books book # Da 3196 is in it. Non recurring Ad si and mods cert log book.
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".
No you don't under class A
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.
No your wrong. I do. And let's say you don't no me. And you have no higher level of certifcation than I do. A red stamp dose make it higher.
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.
Which means you are not a lame.
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.
Because we have to look after our own interests.
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.
Um sorry wrong again. No chips at all. But extremely balanced. I would not be ask to do things I've done if I wasn't.
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.
Do you include yourself in this ?
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 did not say that. I said you address the SB. That means you look at it. Your aircraft s# may not be affected you then have addressed the sb. Please tel me why in the later Casa log books book # Da 3196 is in it. Non recurring Ad si and mods cert log book.
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".
No you don't under class A
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.
No your wrong. I do. And let's say you don't no me. And you have no higher level of certifcation than I do. A red stamp dose make it higher.
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.
Which means you are not a lame.
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.
Because we have to look after our own interests.
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.
Um sorry wrong again. No chips at all. But extremely balanced. I would not be ask to do things I've done if I wasn't.
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.
Do you include yourself in this ?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is a SB.
It's a means of two things.
It's a way of the manufacturer limiting liability if you don't do something as they have asked.
Next it's a way to bring defects that need to be addressed to the market quickly and easily.
In the old days and forget anywhere else in the world but here. They were addressed and if Casa thought they was of merit they were made into a AD. This meant that SB didn't have to be complied with. This option is no longer valid.
The owness is now on the certifying lame. Their is no paper work that an owner can say yes or no and the lame be protected.
Now we have country of origin ADs. If you every won't to see how we become useless go to Casa site. Ads. Equipment. Restraint equipment. 2013-0020R4.
Then tell me and the rest of use how to compily with this AD here in Australia.
It's a means of two things.
It's a way of the manufacturer limiting liability if you don't do something as they have asked.
Next it's a way to bring defects that need to be addressed to the market quickly and easily.
In the old days and forget anywhere else in the world but here. They were addressed and if Casa thought they was of merit they were made into a AD. This meant that SB didn't have to be complied with. This option is no longer valid.
The owness is now on the certifying lame. Their is no paper work that an owner can say yes or no and the lame be protected.
Now we have country of origin ADs. If you every won't to see how we become useless go to Casa site. Ads. Equipment. Restraint equipment. 2013-0020R4.
Then tell me and the rest of use how to compily with this AD here in Australia.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Bill. You state that SB are also not manitory in Class A which is wrong.
Please remember a major airline that is no longer with us in around 2001 that got all sorts of trouble for not caring out SB on it 767. Or is that just another made up fact by myself.
Please remember a major airline that is no longer with us in around 2001 that got all sorts of trouble for not caring out SB on it 767. Or is that just another made up fact by myself.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article, with some choice phrases to boot!
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../apr/36-41.pdf
For an airline SB that's apparently not mandatory, it sure was applied as such!
"Ansett consulted CASA and Boeing on the best way of making up the inspections. The end of April was the deadline to complete them".!
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../apr/36-41.pdf
For an airline SB that's apparently not mandatory, it sure was applied as such!
"Ansett consulted CASA and Boeing on the best way of making up the inspections. The end of April was the deadline to complete them".!