Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?

[Perspective]

Put it this way brainy.
You elect to use the CASA maint schedule 5.
42B1-1.

6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.

42B1-1 does not specifically cover prop, mag, fuel pump periods etc

An example of an AD issued to allow an over run is AD/Prop/1, whereby they
Allow extended periods for Hartzell etc.
If the manufacturers data did not have to be followed in the first place, then why
Would CASA have to issue an AD to allow deviance.
The direction is then, any devience from the data requires direction from CASA.

If you want to deviate from the overhaul limits, this maybe one way, but I'll have to confirm,
As the CofR holder, as you know you are also responsible, if you want to deviate from the limits, you would have to supply me with a written letter, outlining your desire to not conform with the overhaul limits, the approved Data and so on.
Then you would have to guarantee there would be no come back on the maintainer if such component failed, and guarantee no charge of negligence
Bought about by any other party for failing our duty of care.
Then convince a maintainer of such.
otherwise create your own SOM for your aircraft and get it approved by CASA,
But in doing so, you would have to come up with an enormous amount of supporting Data to allow you to deviate from the manufacturers limits.
In this Day and age of litigation, liable, duty of care and so on, how do you think
You would go.
In my experience, with what is found not only at the 500hrly but also at the calendar time, it is worth doing, especially for $4-500 bucks over 4 years.
That's what I would term common sense.

[Aviater]

I beg of people not to base their opinions and/or stereotypes of Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers on yr right.


Most of us are open minded, intelligent and have an excellent grasp of English.


In response to this thread I can add only this; If you trust your LAME and use him/her as your source of advice on airworthiness, then overhaul your components as they suggest. If you believe this to be misinformation and not consistent with the manufacturers data and or Australian regs, then leave them be.


Ultimately it's the certificate of registration holder's responsibility. The LAME can simply ask the CofR holder to sign a letter indicating that he/she has been made aware of the requirements and keep it on file. Everybody goes home happy.


This was done often in regards to the SIDS program when it was first released and people where unsure as to whether is was mandated or not.

[Brainy]

Don't worry, we don't! I have an excellent working relationship with my LAME, who was also uncertain as to what was mandatory and what was not. I trust him absolutely. It was the advice of a second LAME who had been told by CASA to enforce overhaul of my recently-stripped-and-rebuilt mags, which led to this discussion. Ultimately we checked with CASA and as I have written above, was told that no it was not mandatory at the present time (which, as per my posts above, seems to fit with what CASA's own advice to owners and operators seems to suggest).

Quite how to reconcile this with all the differing opinions, regs and bad punctuation in this thread I do not know, but I know my position. At least for now. I also have $2000 more to spend on flying my aeroplane (which I gather is what it is for) - almost 10 hours' worth of fuel. Safe flying and maintaining, all.

[yr right]

Weather or not I have good English is not a matter for decision really. As for being open minded I'm glad to say I am. I'm willing to put up what I've done in aviation against what you have possibly done.

Next a letter from the CofA holder in case of an accident or incident, death or injury or anything else you can place up will not stand up
The court will see black and white. By meaely giving a letter to have signed by a maintenance org you have admitted that something is wrong. Defense would say my clients did not understand what was given to them. Then what as a lame are you going to say. Please hand me the soap !

[Perspective]

Got my response brainy.
Will PM when time permits, we have to follow the Reg's.
The CMM outlines the periods to follow along with any SB's.
The question whether you give me a letter or not requesting they not
Be done does not change the fact that the reg's require, what they require.
You are still bound to follow the same Reg's as I am, it just becomes a
Blame shift.
In other words, whether you or I take responsibility, it doesn't change the CAR's,
And compliance therein. It doesn't suddenly make it optional because you don't want to do it.
If what your saying is, yours were overhauled 1 year ago, and are due now for calendar, sounds a bit strange anyway.

[baron_beeza]

Weather or not I have good English is not a matter for decision really. As for being open minded I'm glad to say I am. I'm willing to put up what I've done in aviation against what you have possibly done.

Surely this is bluster. I, like many others here, have been in the industry for many decades.
I hold licences for both engineering and Commercial flying from a multitude of countries.
We are talking military, - several countries, Airline, - several countries and then GA. The GA would be many countries, all about the world, including Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Many years in both NZ and Oz as well obviously.

I am unsure what to make of some of these posts. I have put some thought into it and I really can't recall ever meeting any LAME, in any of those countries, with such a poor grasp of the English language.

I honestly can't comment on the content. I am not prepared to make the extra effort to try and read, let alone try and understand it.

A LAME should be able to pay attention to detail, it is a league above spannering or twisting a screwdriver.
Lazy English is either a cunning plan to conceal identity or it is possibly an indication of something else.

I agree with much of Aviater's post.
We are all different and interpretation of the rules could possibly amount to a personal thing. It depends on personality, experience, knowledge, environment etc.
I would expect different guys to have differing views on some of this stuff.

[yr right]

Well baron I am dyslexic. If people don't believe that then let them think that. I too have O/S lic coverage. Worked in five countries had approvals in each or lic coverage. Worked all over Aust in remote locations on my own looking after turbine px aircraft.
What I loose in English skills I make up in other areas.
And if I was so bad I just wondering why I am continually ask what I'm up too. Come work for me. And I work on the principle do it once and do it right. This is what I've done my whole career and coming to nearly 3 decades of being lic I think I must be doing something right.

[LeadSled]

Brainy,
Hang in there!!

The question that everybody (well, almost everybody) is dancing around is, and asked in the first page of this thread, and still not answered is:

" What regulation in Australia makes OEM manufacturer's Service Bulletins (that have NOT been made a country of origine ADs) mandatory in Australia."

This question "goes double" for engines operating "on condition" for private and aerial work operations, AD/Eng/4 refers.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Interestingly, the FSA Nov. 98 article (link in post#61) is legally incorrect in terms of what a LAME is signing for, but if he/she was an FAA A&P operating under FAR 43, the description would be correct.
CASA have prosecuted LAMEs on the difference.

[yr right]

Caap 42B -1(1)

Paragraph 6.1

That states what you have to do if you are useing shed 5.
Now if you can read something different into that I would like to know.


Next country of origin ADs before the change over in by memory in 2009 are not applicable if they are not already set by an Australian AD or added in the future by an Australian Ad or courty of origin Ad.

[yr right]

I've inly heard today that an Australian lame is on man slaughter charges after a fatal accident after a magneto failure. I don't have any other details at this stage. Anyone else heard of this.

[Frank Arouet]

From Bendix Ad Avweb today

[LeadSled]

Yr er er er er right or wrong,

CAAP42B-1(1)6.1 does not answer the question of whether/weather/wether (just to give yr a few choices) an OEM SERVICE BULLETIN is mandatory, ie: a maintenance manual instruction, or advisory.

Nobody here has yet come up with a AU REGULATION that makes an SB mandatory.

If you literally take OEM SBs as mandatory, there could be no engines (or most other components) on condition. The bulk of the aviation world (airlines) work their aircraft largely "on condition".

In the airline world (or, if you like, large Class A aircraft) SBs are at the discretion of the registered operator, unless the SB has been made an AD.

Tootle pip!!

PS: With a couple of additions, Schedule 5 is a copy of FAR 43, Appendix D and is (sort of --- see the additions) works the same way -- it is not really a "system of maintenance", it is an inspection schedule for an annual inspection, where applicable the MM for the type is the prime reference for carrying out the work that constitutes an inspection.

[yr right]

And you all wounder why the state of engineers are in such decline.

Leadie just hose to prove you not as smart as you think you are.
Next what is the major difference between an airline and what we are talking about here.
Also components that are on condition have their own tracking and as most large aircraft have multi engines including apu they have a greater redundancy. So when you start to tell us how much you know how about keeping apples with apples and bananas with the bananas what you think.

Also Casa is currently rewriting this whole section to make it more clear to what and what dose not have to be done.

[Aussie Bob]

Also Casa is currently rewriting this whole section to make it more clear to what and what dose not have to be done.

Given their track record this will be never.

[Perspective]

C'mon Leadsled,
". The bulk of the aviation world (airlines) work their aircraft largely "on condition"
That's not entirely the whole story as you know, many airlines have their
Own SOM which usually follows Boeing for instance more of less, and yes have to inspect the health of many components from time to time, even if their not removed from the aircraft,
And there are plenty of components that are life'd also.
(You might term that on condition, with required inspections none the less, you might consider the periodic/100hrly to be the on condition and the IRAN or 4 yearly component change/shop visit).
In other words,
The inference is that components are left if they are working, they are left in use as a result
Of inspections that then allow it to continue in operation.
An example of this may be the allowable time limits for a retract on a Cessna and so on even when the power pack has a major service interval.

(Since it was brought up, if one is going to compare to the airlines, how about we DO adopt some of their maintenance practices, like a major inspection every 3 or 4 years down to the nut and bolt.... Oh hang on a sec, didn't we used to already have something like that!)

The flow of information from maintenance base to engineering, compliance,
Maintenance control is a much shorter route than in GA.
I've seen inspection and change times reduced in response to findings as you would expect.

Most GA operators don't have the avenue of inspecting components in house
To satisfy the major Service Manual requirements, hence why they are sent out.

And that's where the requirements are, remember, you cannot elect to use a maintenance schedule that does not cover the inspection of components that may be necessary from time to time, if you are using a maintenance schedule that does not cover the components fitted to the aircraft, the maintenance schedule is said to be defective and you must notify CASA within 7 days that it is deficient, read that somewhere before?
You can use one of Three maintenance sched's as you know,
But the CAR's explicitly say that forever which one you use, components and required inspections must be covered. Per the manufacturers approved Data.

[rutan around]

Four years seems a short time between magneto removals for inspection regardless of hours in use especially considering each engine has two of them.Surely the chance of both failing on the same flight is very low.

They are pretty robust. When I purchased my pride and joy with a normally aspirated IO 520 engine somehow the magnetos were placed on the life of engine list instead of the component list for periodic maintence. Six years and 1,500 hours later the engine gradually became a bitch to start especially in damp weather. Once it was going it was ops normal. It was sort of self grounding as eventually I guess it would not have started at all. As I was concerned about the starting difficulty I took it to a maintence shop and caused a bit of a flurry when the error was discovered. The overhaul was done, magnetos put on the correct list and I was on my way.

Re the SIDS currently compulsory in Australia it will be interesting in ten years or so to compare our accident rate due to lack of maintence failures with countries such as the US where SIDS is not compulsory.

[Dick Smith]

There will be no measurable difference in the accident rates despite our more expensive requirements .

Otherwise the FAA would have mandated the requirement .

[yr right]

Well let Casa produce a form that legally obsloves a lame from not doing maintenance when the owner operator objects to having it done.
This from MUST also be able to have a civil court not be able to prosecute as well against an maintenance org or lame. Until that happens and havering regs that are at best a disgrace hat had no clear view in other words just shades of grey. As a lame we have no choice. For the pay and conditions and the legal position we hold.
I ask this question.
How many of you would loan you car to someone you don't really know to go away on a trip.
Don't worry they won't speed. And if they do they pay for any speeding fine that you will get in the mail.
Just wondering.

[jeta108]

Magnetos are subject to failure at random. The security of having two will be broken if both are overhauled at four yearly intervals instead of by inspection at regular maintenance. The chances of both having similar problems is now enhanced due to CAsA interference. Well done boys and girls.


The only thing to do is mandate every aircraft has three magnetos and in the case of Chieftans who share electrical outputs from each engine, they shall have four per engine.


This will come to be known as the sure to be sure to be sure to be sure "Australian" magneto regulation. Work is still proceeding at a glacial pace to include an electronic ignition module in each engine worth about $50 in the future.


The holdup is Legal Services Branch who are still working on the paragraph pertaining to who should read the regulation as they are unsure if it is an engineering matter or something pilots should be trusted with and what the final fitted price will be. Airservices have shown interest in this aspect marking a cost benefit analysis project for taxpayer funded installation from savings made from Navaid redundancy.


Affordable safety for all.

[yr right]

I must say after doing a lot of SIDS work and after the fuel contamination after mobile fuel effort.
Being allowed to go in the aircraft in a far deeper way than you can normally access is a real eye opener.
The things we find ln these older aircraft is a real wake up.