Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr Right,
I'm a bit surprised that after following your response to these posts with regards to your obvious knowledge and experience of all things LAME and related legal requirements that you have possibly overlooked (or chosen for whatever reason) not to share a couple of things.
Maybe this has been as a result of your experiences gained as an expert witness in courts over the years however but it's a bit difficult to tell as there is no further detail with regards to your experience in this regard as to what types of courts you've been involved with aside from being not only an expert witness but the griller of (I presume) other witnesses and your interpretation of the word "recommend" (which is fair enough as you have alluded that it was accepted by the court due to a previous determination).
Maybe to relate this to the thread topic in relation as to what would happen if a fatal accident should occur in the event of a mechanical failure of some sort which has occurred following compliance or non compliance with an AW requirement, MR or SB (or whatever) by a person so authorised to effect that compliance (or non- compliance) could I suggest the following hypothetical situations.....
1. In the first instance I would imagine that regardless of where in Australia an incident or accident has occurred that as because there has been loss of life the matter will go before a coroner whose responsibility it is to determine Identity (of deceased), Date (the death occurred), Place (the death occurred) and manner and cause of death. The first few are easy ones but manner and cause of death is where things get interesting as generally speaking rules of evidence do not apply in Coroners courts.
2. In the event that evidence was identified during any subsequent process that such failure occurred directly as a deliberate act (that is a person or persons knowingly installed a faulty part or knowingly did not maintain something to required, and I would suggest to accepted published industry standards) by a person or persons then that would probably amount to a criminal act whereby the evidence supportive of this act would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard by which criminal courts operate and rely upon for determination. In such a case the matter would be referred by the coroner to the relevant DPP for a legal advising and identification of an appropriate course of action.
3. In the event that this doesn't happen and say, the relatives of the deceased, decide to pursue matters further then the option is open for address within the civil legal system. At civil standard the balance of probabilities is the test which means that this (the event that is before court) probably happened. On the other side though a civil court can determine that it probably did not happen and it was nobody's fault and that all appropriate and proper actions were taken by the person or persons responsible in an genuine attempt to comply etc.
4. If this involved a company of course then there is always the option of insolvency, the decisions of which can always be tested by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if so desired. If the company or person or whatever acted as a result of a decision made by an Australian Government Minister and that decision is to be disputed the AAT is where you go to do that. As we all know, the AAT deals with matters that relate to Civil Aviation and of recent times has been quite thorough with its examinations in matters that have involved not only the company concerned but also of the regulator. Their results are recorded as being fair and impartial.
Now I don't know much about this stuff however from what I read I guess at the end of the day, as far as I can see, it comes down to a question of compliance or a decision of non-compliance which may or may not have an adverse outcome.
Even with your vast experience you should not discount the views offered by the likes of Brainy, Leady, Jabba, Creamie, Eddie, Perspective and others. They are all entitled to their interpretation and spin on things and I think the acknowledgement and courtesy that they know what they are talking about in their various fields would not go astray. Like you, they've all earnt it and their knowledge and input is just as valid as yours.
Remember, you're an expert witness. An expert witness respects the views of others and takes them into consideration before response.
Thanks for reading,
Stiky
I'm a bit surprised that after following your response to these posts with regards to your obvious knowledge and experience of all things LAME and related legal requirements that you have possibly overlooked (or chosen for whatever reason) not to share a couple of things.
Maybe this has been as a result of your experiences gained as an expert witness in courts over the years however but it's a bit difficult to tell as there is no further detail with regards to your experience in this regard as to what types of courts you've been involved with aside from being not only an expert witness but the griller of (I presume) other witnesses and your interpretation of the word "recommend" (which is fair enough as you have alluded that it was accepted by the court due to a previous determination).
Maybe to relate this to the thread topic in relation as to what would happen if a fatal accident should occur in the event of a mechanical failure of some sort which has occurred following compliance or non compliance with an AW requirement, MR or SB (or whatever) by a person so authorised to effect that compliance (or non- compliance) could I suggest the following hypothetical situations.....
1. In the first instance I would imagine that regardless of where in Australia an incident or accident has occurred that as because there has been loss of life the matter will go before a coroner whose responsibility it is to determine Identity (of deceased), Date (the death occurred), Place (the death occurred) and manner and cause of death. The first few are easy ones but manner and cause of death is where things get interesting as generally speaking rules of evidence do not apply in Coroners courts.
2. In the event that evidence was identified during any subsequent process that such failure occurred directly as a deliberate act (that is a person or persons knowingly installed a faulty part or knowingly did not maintain something to required, and I would suggest to accepted published industry standards) by a person or persons then that would probably amount to a criminal act whereby the evidence supportive of this act would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard by which criminal courts operate and rely upon for determination. In such a case the matter would be referred by the coroner to the relevant DPP for a legal advising and identification of an appropriate course of action.
3. In the event that this doesn't happen and say, the relatives of the deceased, decide to pursue matters further then the option is open for address within the civil legal system. At civil standard the balance of probabilities is the test which means that this (the event that is before court) probably happened. On the other side though a civil court can determine that it probably did not happen and it was nobody's fault and that all appropriate and proper actions were taken by the person or persons responsible in an genuine attempt to comply etc.
4. If this involved a company of course then there is always the option of insolvency, the decisions of which can always be tested by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if so desired. If the company or person or whatever acted as a result of a decision made by an Australian Government Minister and that decision is to be disputed the AAT is where you go to do that. As we all know, the AAT deals with matters that relate to Civil Aviation and of recent times has been quite thorough with its examinations in matters that have involved not only the company concerned but also of the regulator. Their results are recorded as being fair and impartial.
Now I don't know much about this stuff however from what I read I guess at the end of the day, as far as I can see, it comes down to a question of compliance or a decision of non-compliance which may or may not have an adverse outcome.
Even with your vast experience you should not discount the views offered by the likes of Brainy, Leady, Jabba, Creamie, Eddie, Perspective and others. They are all entitled to their interpretation and spin on things and I think the acknowledgement and courtesy that they know what they are talking about in their various fields would not go astray. Like you, they've all earnt it and their knowledge and input is just as valid as yours.
Remember, you're an expert witness. An expert witness respects the views of others and takes them into consideration before response.
Thanks for reading,
Stiky
Clearly the people who wrote the Ansett article have no clue.
The operator was already obliged under the regulations to carry out the SB, eh yr right? Therefore, there was no need for CASA to “take action to mandate the SB in Australia”.
And “the last straw for CASA” wasn’t the “incorrectly stowed – and therefore inoperative emergency exit slide” on an aircraft that had flown “for eight sectors before the fault was discovered”.
And that “last straw” wasn’t the basis on which CASA “grounded the entire fleet of ten Boeing 767s.”
And another of those straws wasn’t the B767-300 that “had been incorrectly fitted with a leading edge slat from a B767-200”.
What actually happened was that CASA grounded the entire fleet of ten Boeing 767s because Ansett had not carried out the SB. Isn’t that right, Eddie?
The operator was already obliged under the regulations to carry out the SB, eh yr right? Therefore, there was no need for CASA to “take action to mandate the SB in Australia”.
And “the last straw for CASA” wasn’t the “incorrectly stowed – and therefore inoperative emergency exit slide” on an aircraft that had flown “for eight sectors before the fault was discovered”.
And that “last straw” wasn’t the basis on which CASA “grounded the entire fleet of ten Boeing 767s.”
And another of those straws wasn’t the B767-300 that “had been incorrectly fitted with a leading edge slat from a B767-200”.
What actually happened was that CASA grounded the entire fleet of ten Boeing 767s because Ansett had not carried out the SB. Isn’t that right, Eddie?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fortunately were talking about Bendix mags andrew, the periods of maintenance which is set out in the MM, as highlighted in the SB, maintained under the CASA regs, enforced by and audited by their surveyors.
I find it it perplexing that people are using an example whereby an SB was missed, under which the airlines own SOM would have directed it to have been addressed either way, the result of which summoned an enforcement by CASA of said SB with threat of grounding, followed by the AD, for a defect that had the potential of a major disaster. If you want to give me an example whereby the SB shouldn't be observed this one is definitely not it.
I find it it perplexing that people are using an example whereby an SB was missed, under which the airlines own SOM would have directed it to have been addressed either way, the result of which summoned an enforcement by CASA of said SB with threat of grounding, followed by the AD, for a defect that had the potential of a major disaster. If you want to give me an example whereby the SB shouldn't be observed this one is definitely not it.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What actually happened was that CASA grounded the entire fleet of ten Boeing 767s because Ansett had not carried out the SB. Isn’t that right, Eddie?
If you actually read the ATSB report on Ansett between the lines, you understand that Ansett had cut so far into its maintenance planning and fleet oversight function that it could not prove that ANY of its fleets aircraft were in compliance with its system of maintenance.
I challenged Toomey on this on ABC talkback radio at the time of the B767 grounding and he flatly denied he had a problem. Four days later……..
I challenged Toomey on this on ABC talkback radio at the time of the B767 grounding and he flatly denied he had a problem. Four days later……..
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr Right,
I'm a bit surprised that after following your response to these posts with regards to your obvious knowledge and experience of all things LAME and related legal requirements that you have possibly overlooked (or chosen for whatever reason) not to share a couple of things.
Maybe this has been as a result of your experiences gained as an expert witness in courts over the years however but it's a bit difficult to tell as there is no further detail with regards to your experience in this regard as to what types of courts you've been involved with aside from being not only an expert witness but the griller of (I presume) other witnesses and your interpretation of the word "recommend" (which is fair enough as you have alluded that it was accepted by the court due to a previous determination).
Maybe to relate this to the thread topic in relation as to what would happen if a fatal accident should occur in the event of a mechanical failure of some sort which has occurred following compliance or non compliance with an AW requirement, MR or SB (or whatever) by a person so authorised to effect that compliance (or non- compliance) could I suggest the following hypothetical situations.....
1. In the first instance I would imagine that regardless of where in Australia an incident or accident has occurred that as because there has been loss of life the matter will go before a coroner whose responsibility it is to determine Identity (of deceased), Date (the death occurred), Place (the death occurred) and manner and cause of death. The first few are easy ones but manner and cause of death is where things get interesting as generally speaking rules of evidence do not apply in Coroners courts.
2. In the event that evidence was identified during any subsequent process that such failure occurred directly as a deliberate act (that is a person or persons knowingly installed a faulty part or knowingly did not maintain something to required, and I would suggest to accepted published industry standards) by a person or persons then that would probably amount to a criminal act whereby the evidence supportive of this act would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard by which criminal courts operate and rely upon for determination. In such a case the matter would be referred by the coroner to the relevant DPP for a legal advising and identification of an appropriate course of action.
3. In the event that this doesn't happen and say, the relatives of the deceased, decide to pursue matters further then the option is open for address within the civil legal system. At civil standard the balance of probabilities is the test which means that this (the event that is before court) probably happened. On the other side though a civil court can determine that it probably did not happen and it was nobody's fault and that all appropriate and proper actions were taken by the person or persons responsible in an genuine attempt to comply etc.
4. If this involved a company of course then there is always the option of insolvency, the decisions of which can always be tested by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if so desired. If the company or person or whatever acted as a result of a decision made by an Australian Government Minister and that decision is to be disputed the AAT is where you go to do that. As we all know, the AAT deals with matters that relate to Civil Aviation and of recent times has been quite thorough with its examinations in matters that have involved not only the company concerned but also of the regulator. Their results are recorded as being fair and impartial.
Now I don't know much about this stuff however from what I read I guess at the end of the day, as far as I can see, it comes down to a question of compliance or a decision of non-compliance which may or may not have an adverse outcome.
Even with your vast experience you should not discount the views offered by the likes of Brainy, Leady, Jabba, Creamie, Eddie, Perspective and others. They are all entitled to their interpretation and spin on things and I think the acknowledgement and courtesy that they know what they are talking about in their various fields would not go astray. Like you, they've all earnt it and their knowledge and input is just as valid as yours.
Remember, you're an expert witness. An expert witness respects the views of others and takes them into consideration before response.
Thanks for reading,
Stiky
I'm a bit surprised that after following your response to these posts with regards to your obvious knowledge and experience of all things LAME and related legal requirements that you have possibly overlooked (or chosen for whatever reason) not to share a couple of things.
Maybe this has been as a result of your experiences gained as an expert witness in courts over the years however but it's a bit difficult to tell as there is no further detail with regards to your experience in this regard as to what types of courts you've been involved with aside from being not only an expert witness but the griller of (I presume) other witnesses and your interpretation of the word "recommend" (which is fair enough as you have alluded that it was accepted by the court due to a previous determination).
Maybe to relate this to the thread topic in relation as to what would happen if a fatal accident should occur in the event of a mechanical failure of some sort which has occurred following compliance or non compliance with an AW requirement, MR or SB (or whatever) by a person so authorised to effect that compliance (or non- compliance) could I suggest the following hypothetical situations.....
1. In the first instance I would imagine that regardless of where in Australia an incident or accident has occurred that as because there has been loss of life the matter will go before a coroner whose responsibility it is to determine Identity (of deceased), Date (the death occurred), Place (the death occurred) and manner and cause of death. The first few are easy ones but manner and cause of death is where things get interesting as generally speaking rules of evidence do not apply in Coroners courts.
2. In the event that evidence was identified during any subsequent process that such failure occurred directly as a deliberate act (that is a person or persons knowingly installed a faulty part or knowingly did not maintain something to required, and I would suggest to accepted published industry standards) by a person or persons then that would probably amount to a criminal act whereby the evidence supportive of this act would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard by which criminal courts operate and rely upon for determination. In such a case the matter would be referred by the coroner to the relevant DPP for a legal advising and identification of an appropriate course of action.
3. In the event that this doesn't happen and say, the relatives of the deceased, decide to pursue matters further then the option is open for address within the civil legal system. At civil standard the balance of probabilities is the test which means that this (the event that is before court) probably happened. On the other side though a civil court can determine that it probably did not happen and it was nobody's fault and that all appropriate and proper actions were taken by the person or persons responsible in an genuine attempt to comply etc.
4. If this involved a company of course then there is always the option of insolvency, the decisions of which can always be tested by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if so desired. If the company or person or whatever acted as a result of a decision made by an Australian Government Minister and that decision is to be disputed the AAT is where you go to do that. As we all know, the AAT deals with matters that relate to Civil Aviation and of recent times has been quite thorough with its examinations in matters that have involved not only the company concerned but also of the regulator. Their results are recorded as being fair and impartial.
Now I don't know much about this stuff however from what I read I guess at the end of the day, as far as I can see, it comes down to a question of compliance or a decision of non-compliance which may or may not have an adverse outcome.
Even with your vast experience you should not discount the views offered by the likes of Brainy, Leady, Jabba, Creamie, Eddie, Perspective and others. They are all entitled to their interpretation and spin on things and I think the acknowledgement and courtesy that they know what they are talking about in their various fields would not go astray. Like you, they've all earnt it and their knowledge and input is just as valid as yours.
Remember, you're an expert witness. An expert witness respects the views of others and takes them into consideration before response.
Thanks for reading,
Stiky
The maintenance org or lame should not be in anyway held responsible for an accident for inadequate reqs and that's the problem. Aircraft maintenance is built on proactive maintenance not reactive.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Yr Right.
I thought however in your experience as an expert witness in courts that you would be across who pays for legal representation etc. As you would know if you are called in that capacity by a court then such representation is provided by the court so that shouldn't be an issue for you given your knowledge and experience.
If however you are a lay person that does'nt have the benefit of your exposure in this regard then that's why you or the company you work for have insurance. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and your insurance will back you.
If however you knowingly do something wrong and that can be proved that when you did or didn't do it you knew that your actions or inactions would have a life threatening result then problem could possibly belong'em you big time.
As for an individual's choice whether to take due regard to issues of compliance then that is up to them. As you've often stated an individuals choice concerning the safety of loved one's being carried in a poorly maintained aircraft can only rest with the person concerned. It's a choice that would surely weight heavily on anyone's mind. I strongly doubt that any of the posters on this thread would fall into that category.
I'm guessing that Scheduled maintenance as per MR / AD requirements would be a form of proactive maintenance when coupled with SB's across the board as opposed to reactive (unscheduled) maintenance if I follow your drift correctly in which case your quote:
Is quite relevant and quite accurate I would hope.
Stiky
I thought however in your experience as an expert witness in courts that you would be across who pays for legal representation etc. As you would know if you are called in that capacity by a court then such representation is provided by the court so that shouldn't be an issue for you given your knowledge and experience.
If however you are a lay person that does'nt have the benefit of your exposure in this regard then that's why you or the company you work for have insurance. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and your insurance will back you.
If however you knowingly do something wrong and that can be proved that when you did or didn't do it you knew that your actions or inactions would have a life threatening result then problem could possibly belong'em you big time.
As for an individual's choice whether to take due regard to issues of compliance then that is up to them. As you've often stated an individuals choice concerning the safety of loved one's being carried in a poorly maintained aircraft can only rest with the person concerned. It's a choice that would surely weight heavily on anyone's mind. I strongly doubt that any of the posters on this thread would fall into that category.
I'm guessing that Scheduled maintenance as per MR / AD requirements would be a form of proactive maintenance when coupled with SB's across the board as opposed to reactive (unscheduled) maintenance if I follow your drift correctly in which case your quote:
Aircraft maintenance is built on proactive maintenance not reactive.
Stiky
I find it it perplexing that people are using an example whereby an SB was missed, under which the airlines own SOM would have directed it to have been addressed either way, the result of which summoned an enforcement by CASA of said SB with threat of grounding, followed by the AD, for a defect that had the potential of a major disaster. If you want to give me an example whereby the SB shouldn't be observed this one is definitely not it.
The FAA and CASA left the airlines to decide, and continue to leave the airlines (and everyone else) to decide, what to do about SBs. That concept applies to all SB's, including ones applicable to humble ol' Bendix magnetos.
In the case of the 767 engine pylon SB, however, the FAA and CASA eventually came to the realisation that compliance should be mandatory rather than a matter of choice, and issued an AD. That's what ADs are for. That's not what SBs are for.
Strawman argument, Eddie? So are you now saying that CASA didn't ground Ansett because it failed to carry out the SB? What do you say is the basis on which CASA grounded Ansett?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Yr Right.
I thought however in your experience as an expert witness in courts that you would be across who pays for legal representation etc. As you would know if you are called in that capacity by a court then such representation is provided by the court so that shouldn't be an issue for you given your knowledge and experience.
If however you are a lay person that does'nt have the benefit of your exposure in this regard then that's why you or the company you work for have insurance. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and your insurance will back you.
If however you knowingly do something wrong and that can be proved that when you did or didn't do it you knew that your actions or inactions would have a life threatening result then problem could possibly belong'em you big time.
As for an individual's choice whether to take due regard to issues of compliance then that is up to them. As you've often stated an individuals choice concerning the safety of loved one's being carried in a poorly maintained aircraft can only rest with the person concerned. It's a choice that would surely weight heavily on anyone's mind. I strongly doubt that any of the posters on this thread would fall into that category.
I'm guessing that Scheduled maintenance as per MR / AD requirements would be a form of proactive maintenance when coupled with SB's across the board as opposed to reactive (unscheduled) maintenance if I follow your drift correctly in which case your quote:
Is quite relevant and quite accurate I would hope.
Stiky
I thought however in your experience as an expert witness in courts that you would be across who pays for legal representation etc. As you would know if you are called in that capacity by a court then such representation is provided by the court so that shouldn't be an issue for you given your knowledge and experience.
If however you are a lay person that does'nt have the benefit of your exposure in this regard then that's why you or the company you work for have insurance. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and your insurance will back you.
If however you knowingly do something wrong and that can be proved that when you did or didn't do it you knew that your actions or inactions would have a life threatening result then problem could possibly belong'em you big time.
As for an individual's choice whether to take due regard to issues of compliance then that is up to them. As you've often stated an individuals choice concerning the safety of loved one's being carried in a poorly maintained aircraft can only rest with the person concerned. It's a choice that would surely weight heavily on anyone's mind. I strongly doubt that any of the posters on this thread would fall into that category.
I'm guessing that Scheduled maintenance as per MR / AD requirements would be a form of proactive maintenance when coupled with SB's across the board as opposed to reactive (unscheduled) maintenance if I follow your drift correctly in which case your quote:
Is quite relevant and quite accurate I would hope.
Stiky
The objective is to provide a high level of maintenance and hence keep myself out of the court system.
One case we one it still cost over $30k to prove that we was right. And this was just a case of a vindictive Awi no
Accident no incident. Who paid for that. My mate paid for that. I have my time for free. I don't get your point at all. The objective is not court. Court is a failure. There are no winners everyone pays except Casa. That's why I've previously said that they need to held accountable for their actions.
So what if I'm deamed to be a fault because I didn't do a SB because the owner didn't won't to do it. Why should I and when I say I I am talking about ever lame have to take that responsibility for someone else desire to do a particular job. So at what stage do I stop doing maintenance. If I make a mistake then that's my responsibility not yours if you make that mistake why should it be mind again. Because if I release it then I am saying the aircraft is in a fit and proper state for flight. Not you.
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?
In answer to your hypothetical Jaba, contact the OEM and ask questions
So……what do you do now (In Australia)?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So……what do you do now (In Australia)?
If they don't have approval I guess it is a moot point.
Problem arises in that I can't alter the setting unless I have approval on my CofA for the component overhaul, discussions with CASA would have to take place.
Further thoughts, volt regulator is set IAW Aircraft maintenance manual same as fuel pressures etc, so may be able to alter IAW aircraft data rather than the equipment data.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas24zzk View Post
I always understood CAAP's to be an advisory publication. You should consider it, but you don't HAVE to comply
Well jaz you a quite correct.
Originally Posted by jas24zzk View Post
I always understood CAAP's to be an advisory publication. You should consider it, but you don't HAVE to comply
Well jaz you a quite correct.
Yes a caap is not law. But couple that with the LBS and it is. If you elect to do shedule 5 it will be on your log book statement which now you have to do it IAW. This now makes the caap a legal document. As the caap state how to do shed 5. I would like to see anyone try and make a defense against that in a court.
As an example, CAAP 92-1 deals with ALA's. Try to find an ALA that complies with it in its whole......NONE do. If it was enforcable in a court of law, then CASA would have closed most airfields in Oz.
Coupling Sched 5 to a CAAP means that your 'lack of maintenance' is only restricted by CASA AD's and the manufacturers Publications.
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
The bigger problem, is that CASA takes such matters to the AAT, rather than the courts, where normal rules of evidence and prudence do not apply.
-----------------------
A small rule change would ruin CASA in the AAT. Simply forbid the AAT from reviewing matters that have Strict Liability applied. That'll knuck em.
jas24zzk,
Well said.
Folks,
Just to attempt to clear something up --- whether it is a CAAP or an AC, it is an acceptable means of compliance, one way of putting it is that it is one way, but not the only way of complying with the regulation, to which it refers.
I find it very difficult to conceive of the situation where a LBS can make a CAAP L-A-W law, except in the opinion of bush lawyer AWIs and LAMEs.
After all, it is just an election as to which of the three possibilities to which a Class B aircraft can be maintained, and before yr rrrr wrong jumps on the bandwagon, the choice is the choice of the registered operator, not the LAME.
Still, not one of you has taken up the challenge of figuring out why many Australian C.of As may be invalid, because the airframe does not comply with the manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness --- how or why does this come about, and what can you do within Australian law to make certain that it does not apply to you aircraft. Not even yr rrr wrong has told me I am wrong about the C.of A matter!!
Don't wait until you are in court fighting an insurance company over a refused payout for a damaged aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Well said.
Folks,
Just to attempt to clear something up --- whether it is a CAAP or an AC, it is an acceptable means of compliance, one way of putting it is that it is one way, but not the only way of complying with the regulation, to which it refers.
I find it very difficult to conceive of the situation where a LBS can make a CAAP L-A-W law, except in the opinion of bush lawyer AWIs and LAMEs.
After all, it is just an election as to which of the three possibilities to which a Class B aircraft can be maintained, and before yr rrrr wrong jumps on the bandwagon, the choice is the choice of the registered operator, not the LAME.
Still, not one of you has taken up the challenge of figuring out why many Australian C.of As may be invalid, because the airframe does not comply with the manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness --- how or why does this come about, and what can you do within Australian law to make certain that it does not apply to you aircraft. Not even yr rrr wrong has told me I am wrong about the C.of A matter!!
Don't wait until you are in court fighting an insurance company over a refused payout for a damaged aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
POH? 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order.
CAR.
CAO.
CAAP.
CAAP's explain CAO's in simple (hmmm) language.
CAO's breakdown in greater detail the CAR's.
CAR's lay out the rules and practices that must be adhered to,
They are the Reg's, instrument if you will of the CIvil Aviation Act, which are the orders made by parliament.
Why would a CAAP be enforceable? It only exists to direct you to the act, which
Is enforcable.
I must be missing something here! (Ducks for cover!)
some interesting info,
http://www.ageingaircraft.com.au/fil...-%20Update.pdf
CAR.
CAO.
CAAP.
CAAP's explain CAO's in simple (hmmm) language.
CAO's breakdown in greater detail the CAR's.
CAR's lay out the rules and practices that must be adhered to,
They are the Reg's, instrument if you will of the CIvil Aviation Act, which are the orders made by parliament.
Why would a CAAP be enforceable? It only exists to direct you to the act, which
Is enforcable.
I must be missing something here! (Ducks for cover!)
some interesting info,
http://www.ageingaircraft.com.au/fil...-%20Update.pdf
Last edited by Perspective; 13th Jun 2015 at 00:57.
Perspective,
You are missing a few things:
The CAAct itself.
CASRs 1998,
Advisory Circulars
Between 4 and 5000 Legislative Instruments that vary the regulations.
Manuals of Standards, MOS, thousands of pages of them.
CASA Policy letters --- of very doubtful legal enforceability
etc, etc.
It would be an interesting and ultimately futile exercise to try and compile a definitive list, in order of precedence.
Australia's aviation regulations are a convoluted, complex and contradictory mess and getting worse by the day.
Tootle pip!!
You are missing a few things:
The CAAct itself.
CASRs 1998,
Advisory Circulars
Between 4 and 5000 Legislative Instruments that vary the regulations.
Manuals of Standards, MOS, thousands of pages of them.
CASA Policy letters --- of very doubtful legal enforceability
etc, etc.
It would be an interesting and ultimately futile exercise to try and compile a definitive list, in order of precedence.
Australia's aviation regulations are a convoluted, complex and contradictory mess and getting worse by the day.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple question about magneto overhauls segues to CASA are Cnts, way to go leadsled et al
Perhaps you all should start a thread about that.
Or maybe Aunty Pru would be more your style
Mi les Pinis
Perhaps you all should start a thread about that.
Or maybe Aunty Pru would be more your style
Mi les Pinis
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 50E Inconsistent requirements—resolution of inconsistencies
(1) This regulation applies where, apart from this regulation, a person would be required, by this Part, to comply with two requirements that are inconsistent
(1) This regulation applies where, apart from this regulation, a person would be required, by this Part, to comply with two requirements that are inconsistent
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cleared,
The CAR will "allow" you to use CASA's list. Tick. CASA's list Sched. 5.
But, if you use Sched 5. Tick. Components must be covered.tick.
Per the approv. Data. Tick. Per MM. Per mfg CMM. As highlighted by SB
Which highlights the MM/CMM.
The Mag has to be done per MFG Data.
Don't focus on an SB that people argue is not mandatory.
If you want to focus on the SB disregarding all other references there is this.
Per the Reg's. CASA asks,
Does the manufacturer consider SB's optional.
From the Latest Piper manual.
"Piper considers SB/SL mandatory".
Quote:
"Australia's aviation regulations are a convoluted, complex and contradictory mess and getting worse by the day."
I would say it's actually going the other way, but by removing AD's that allow over run's for instance etc, probably not the direction people want!
The CAR will "allow" you to use CASA's list. Tick. CASA's list Sched. 5.
But, if you use Sched 5. Tick. Components must be covered.tick.
Per the approv. Data. Tick. Per MM. Per mfg CMM. As highlighted by SB
Which highlights the MM/CMM.
The Mag has to be done per MFG Data.
Don't focus on an SB that people argue is not mandatory.
If you want to focus on the SB disregarding all other references there is this.
Per the Reg's. CASA asks,
Does the manufacturer consider SB's optional.
From the Latest Piper manual.
"Piper considers SB/SL mandatory".
Quote:
"Australia's aviation regulations are a convoluted, complex and contradictory mess and getting worse by the day."
I would say it's actually going the other way, but by removing AD's that allow over run's for instance etc, probably not the direction people want!