Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really what I was saying yr Rgt,
The comment was made previously about airlines having their own requirements, but even with their own robust SOM's, they were made to comply,
"Details were required to be provided when manufacturers’ recommendations were acted upon and a full technical justification recorded when they were not"
After I was informed we had to comply with mfg Data Bla bla, the comment was also made to me that any devience from such requirements, required justification from the CofR holder, but would not exclude my obligations or
Responsability.
We used to joke that it seemed every single SB, Mod, whatever was incorporated on our fleet as directed by Boeing, maybe to avoid what happened to Ansett and to avoid,
"CASA warned Ansett of its intention to issue a notice giving Ansett 14 days to show cause why its air operators certificate and certificate of approval should not be withdrawn"
The challenges facing Ansett were obviously far wider and bigger than just this issue, but highlights how CASA approached them in this particular regard.
The comment was made previously about airlines having their own requirements, but even with their own robust SOM's, they were made to comply,
"Details were required to be provided when manufacturers’ recommendations were acted upon and a full technical justification recorded when they were not"
After I was informed we had to comply with mfg Data Bla bla, the comment was also made to me that any devience from such requirements, required justification from the CofR holder, but would not exclude my obligations or
Responsability.
We used to joke that it seemed every single SB, Mod, whatever was incorporated on our fleet as directed by Boeing, maybe to avoid what happened to Ansett and to avoid,
"CASA warned Ansett of its intention to issue a notice giving Ansett 14 days to show cause why its air operators certificate and certificate of approval should not be withdrawn"
The challenges facing Ansett were obviously far wider and bigger than just this issue, but highlights how CASA approached them in this particular regard.
Yr rong dudes
From the very article you cited, yr right and Perspective:
In other words, the regulatory position was (and remains) precisely as LeadSled has described, and you r both rong.
*
CASA recognised the seriousness of the Boeing alert service bulletin. While the US Federal Aviation Administration at that time had not issued an airworthiness directive mandating the alert service bulletin, CASA took action to mandate the service bulletin in Australia. The FAA followed suit.
*
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never seen or written a LBS or heard of one ether in a class A aircraft that dose not let you NOT do a SB etc. that was the point.
The point with chance it with ansett was an extreme result. I also did not say that was the only thing that caused the collapse of this airline. However it shows what I said about SB etc. that was the point i was making
The point with chance it with ansett was an extreme result. I also did not say that was the only thing that caused the collapse of this airline. However it shows what I said about SB etc. that was the point i was making
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um bill. It was mandated by an Australian AD. It didn't mandate the SB. It mandated an Ad which in its frame work mandated the SB. This was normal practice at that time. Now Casa would not make it an Ad it would come out as a country of origin AD. That is unless an extremely urgent Ad is required then it may be implemented by an Australian Ad.
However as I have said SB have to be done on Class A aircraft.
But nice diversion bill. And yes it says different but we know it's you.
I have never seen or written a LBS or heard of one ether in a class A aircraft that dose not let you NOT do a SB etc. that was the point.
The point with chance it with ansett was an extreme result. I also did not say that was the only thing that caused the collapse of this airline. However it shows what I said about SB etc. that was the point i was making
The point with chance it with ansett was an extreme result. I also did not say that was the only thing that caused the collapse of this airline. However it shows what I said about SB etc. that was the point i was making
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett .......received a service bulletin from Boeing two years earlier notifying the airline that the 767s needed to undergo the inspection on reaching 25,000
CASA recognised the seriousness of the Boeing alert service bulletin. While
the US Federal Aviation Administration at that time had not issued an airworthi ness directive mandating the alert service bulletin, CASA took action to mandate the service bulletin in Australia. The FAA followed suit
the US Federal Aviation Administration at that time had not issued an airworthi ness directive mandating the alert service bulletin, CASA took action to mandate the service bulletin in Australia. The FAA followed suit
To help you, the sequence was that ANsett missed the SB and then CASA took enforcement action, sometime later they raised an AD
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing. Boeing alert SB. IF the Boeing SB stated optional, then so be it, but what about FAA regs, Boeing's maintenance Req. And compliance therein along with how ever Ansett's SOM was written under CASA's Reg's.
If Piper states optional?
Please read the whole article. Is it not one of the things that led to its grounding.
It's show cause? It's obligations? It did not have robust engineering direction not to comply. does the excerpts from Piper MM mean optional, they consider compliance Mandatory. All SB's. The very data im directed to, not boeings, for that read the 767 MM for me and let me know.
If Piper states optional?
Please read the whole article. Is it not one of the things that led to its grounding.
It's show cause? It's obligations? It did not have robust engineering direction not to comply. does the excerpts from Piper MM mean optional, they consider compliance Mandatory. All SB's. The very data im directed to, not boeings, for that read the 767 MM for me and let me know.
I'm real good at Inglish
Are you picking on my inglish or my facts. ... seems like I'm unfairly matched by your mastery of everything.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re the Ansett issue and SBs...
From the very article Perspective and yr right are referring to:
In other words, the regulatory position was (and remains) precisely as LeadSled has described.
From the very article Perspective and yr right are referring to:
CASA recognised the seriousness of the Boeing alert service bulletin. While the US Federal Aviation Administration at that time had not issued an airworthiness directive mandating the alert service bulletin, CASA took action to mandate the service bulletin in Australia. The FAA followed suit.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So please inform us why Qantas that had the same aircraft had not the same problem.
You seam to pick and choose what you wish to see.
The problem was tha ansett didn't do what the were suppose to do and that forced Casa hand. Nothing to do with what bill said at David. Please get it right.
This is no different to any SB ever before the change over.
You seam to pick and choose what you wish to see.
The problem was tha ansett didn't do what the were suppose to do and that forced Casa hand. Nothing to do with what bill said at David. Please get it right.
This is no different to any SB ever before the change over.
One advantage of having a plain English rule-set is that we would know EXACTLY what the status of a Service Bulletin is and there wouldn't be 9 pages of children arguing in a playground about how their daddy is bigger than yours...
Surely knowing exactly where we stand and the productivity that goes along with it would make up for the lack of entertainment from posts like these if we had said plain English rules...
Surely knowing exactly where we stand and the productivity that goes along with it would make up for the lack of entertainment from posts like these if we had said plain English rules...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK, slight thread drift.
Manufacturer has some published data. Yet, when the manufacturer gets your "thing" they adjust it to a value that is around 7-13% higher value. (This could be voltage, oil pressure, fuel pressure or any other thing) They do this work in their very own service centre and return it to service for you. They do it for a good reason, known to them and many others but it is outside the published data sheet.
What do you do?
A: Leave it alone as they set it up as part of their service work and signed it out
B: Reduce the level to the data sheet despite knowing it is better to have it where the OEM set it.
C: Start adopting the same practise yourself as it makes sense?
D: Ask someone at CASA?
Manufacturer has some published data. Yet, when the manufacturer gets your "thing" they adjust it to a value that is around 7-13% higher value. (This could be voltage, oil pressure, fuel pressure or any other thing) They do this work in their very own service centre and return it to service for you. They do it for a good reason, known to them and many others but it is outside the published data sheet.
What do you do?
A: Leave it alone as they set it up as part of their service work and signed it out
B: Reduce the level to the data sheet despite knowing it is better to have it where the OEM set it.
C: Start adopting the same practise yourself as it makes sense?
D: Ask someone at CASA?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One advantage of having a plain English rule-set is that we would know EXACTLY what the status of a Service Bulletin is and there wouldn't be 9 pages of children arguing in a playground about how their daddy is bigger than yours...
Surely knowing exactly where we stand and the productivity that goes along with it would make up for the lack of entertainment from posts like these if we had said plain English rules...
Surely knowing exactly where we stand and the productivity that goes along with it would make up for the lack of entertainment from posts like these if we had said plain English rules...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Steve……. no spin whatsoever….just COPY and PASTE.
You have called me a moron before, and that did not offend me but an ALP pollie…….Be careful, I can afford expensive law suits for defamation
(That is the que to have a smile and not a genuine threat of lawyers on your door)
You have called me a moron before, and that did not offend me but an ALP pollie…….Be careful, I can afford expensive law suits for defamation
(That is the que to have a smile and not a genuine threat of lawyers on your door)
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba et al, can you not see that Ansett 767 were grounded for NOT carrying out the SB and then CASA raised an AD
In answer to your hypothetical Jaba, contact the OEM and ask questions
In answer to your hypothetical Jaba, contact the OEM and ask questions
Eddie
If you read the article at the link in Perspective’s post #165 and conclude:
- Ansett was grounded because they didn’t carry out the SB, and
- Ansett was obliged under the regulations to carry out the SB, absent the AD
you sir/madam are illiterate.
If you read the article at the link in Perspective’s post #165 and conclude:
- Ansett was grounded because they didn’t carry out the SB, and
- Ansett was obliged under the regulations to carry out the SB, absent the AD
you sir/madam are illiterate.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another quote from the linked article:
"An alert is the highest level of Boeing SB, and although it is not compulsoryto comply (as it is with an airworthiness directive)..."
"An alert is the highest level of Boeing SB, and although it is not compulsoryto comply (as it is with an airworthiness directive)..."