Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
So, my maintenance provider is telling me that is a CASA requirement now that my magnetos (Bendix) are overhauled as per the manufacturer's suggested calendar interval of 4yrs (private category aircraft). Sounds like BS to me - CASA may be leaning on the maintenance providers to comply, but nowhere can I find the relevant AD and it certainly is not specified in the Airworthiness Limitations of the maintenance manual for the aircraft. CAAP 42(B) 1 specifies 'special techniques required by the manufacturer' are to be complied with, but a magneto overhaul doesn't sound like a 'special technique' to me. I can't find anything in schedule 5 (under which the aircraft is maintained). AD ENG 4 private category 'on condition' maintenance relates to the engine and components, of which a magneto is one.
I am happy with a 500 hour inspection period for each of my (4) magnetos, but where has this O/H 'requirement' come from, and where is it going to lead more importantly - the end of on-condition maintence of anything?
I'm inclined to politely decline until someone shows me the magneto AD that I am obviously missing. Am I reading this wrong - what has been the experience of others?
I am happy with a 500 hour inspection period for each of my (4) magnetos, but where has this O/H 'requirement' come from, and where is it going to lead more importantly - the end of on-condition maintence of anything?
I'm inclined to politely decline until someone shows me the magneto AD that I am obviously missing. Am I reading this wrong - what has been the experience of others?
Last edited by Brainy; 30th May 2015 at 05:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure it does, I have read that. It is neither an AD nor an item in the airworthiness limitations section of the aircraft maintenance manual, so compliance under private category of operations is not mandatory by my reading. Am I wrong? (I am fully aware that I may be - hence my reason for posting). My engine has a manufacturer's recommended calendar TBO of 12 years, yet I am not required to overhaul it then, as it has appropriate on-condition monitoring (as do my magnetos at 500 hourly intervals - and every time I fly). How can one be justified yet the other not?
Last edited by Brainy; 30th May 2015 at 05:29.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your lbs. also what type of aircraft do you have.
Another case of trying to shot the messenger.
Depending on your aircraft you will find it I chapter 5 of your aircraft m/m
Another case of trying to shot the messenger.
Depending on your aircraft you will find it I chapter 5 of your aircraft m/m
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your lbs. also what type of aircraft do you have.
Another case of trying to shot the messenger.
Depending on your aircraft you will find it I chapter 5 of your aircraft m/m
Just because your are using shedule 5 it dose not discule you from complying with manufacturers sb tbo msb etc. the only disculsion you have from them is if an AD gives you that right or you have it on your LBS.
Another case of trying to shot the messenger.
Depending on your aircraft you will find it I chapter 5 of your aircraft m/m
Just because your are using shedule 5 it dose not discule you from complying with manufacturers sb tbo msb etc. the only disculsion you have from them is if an AD gives you that right or you have it on your LBS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can you direct me to where in the regs it decrees that manufacturers' SBs are mandatory? I can't find it. Not trying to shoot the messenger, in fact I would love it if (as the registered operator responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft) CASA communicated directly with me, rather than telling (should at read threatening?) the maintenance providers what they should be telling me. Puts the shops in a difficult position, I realise. Show me the reg that determines this stance, that is what I need.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, we're all getting told that, because that is what CASA are telling the maintenance providers. I just can't find where the regulation is that supports the position for private ops. Unless it is mandatory and in the regs I can't see that we need to accept it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wilco. I've almost doubled my post count now in one measly thread. Must be worked up about it. I got burned twice in the past - first with the bonanza elevator cable AD, with which I complied then the AD was amended to inspection only, then in Aug 2013 when CASA introduced the 'everything on published manufacturer's life limits' rule; had my flap motors overhauled, just for CASA to amend their rule a week later. Hence I am not overly keen to waste more money without a clear safety benefit, just 'cos somebody says that CASA says it is a good idea. Show me the AD and I'll gladly comply.
I do have defective colour vision though so maybe it is just written in green and I can't see it. Clearly I am a risk to myself and all around me with my deranged eyesight and magnetos about to self-destruct.
I do have defective colour vision though so maybe it is just written in green and I can't see it. Clearly I am a risk to myself and all around me with my deranged eyesight and magnetos about to self-destruct.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the caap in regards to shed 5. In is in that by memory. Also depending on the maintenance org awi the demand that aircraft that have a manufacturer som the lbs must be removed from schedule 5 and places on manufacturers som. This is not just for charter but for private as well.
Casa makes the maintenance org as the police and will prosecute and fine the lame. Lame now are forced to be the bad guys. At the end of the day it's not my or any other lame responsible to take a hit for any owner or operator.
When they ground an aircraft for a missing door decal then you see what we are up against.
Casa makes the maintenance org as the police and will prosecute and fine the lame. Lame now are forced to be the bad guys. At the end of the day it's not my or any other lame responsible to take a hit for any owner or operator.
When they ground an aircraft for a missing door decal then you see what we are up against.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel for you guys- I realise that you are basically threatened with litigation (or discipline) from CASA if you don't comply with the latest crusade. However, as the registered operator, it is my election to have the aircraft maintained under the CASA schedule, nobody else's. I'm responsible for the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft, the shop is responsible for doing the work properly and assessing it as detailed in the schedule. I've read the notes pertaining to sched 5 and it doesn't say I have to comply with the manufacturer's schedules or SBs as best I can see.
From CAAP 42(b) 1: "When the Certificate of Registration holder elects to use the CASA Maintenance Schedule the election includes both the Daily and the Periodic Inspection Schedules".
"6.
Periodic Inspection Schedule
6.1
Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional"
Clearly they are hoping that the 'special techniques' is a catch-all phrase but it is pretty clumsy and definitions could be argued that it does not include standard overhaul of items. This is where I am unsure
From CAAP 42(b) 1: "When the Certificate of Registration holder elects to use the CASA Maintenance Schedule the election includes both the Daily and the Periodic Inspection Schedules".
"6.
Periodic Inspection Schedule
6.1
Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional"
Clearly they are hoping that the 'special techniques' is a catch-all phrase but it is pretty clumsy and definitions could be argued that it does not include standard overhaul of items. This is where I am unsure
Last edited by Brainy; 30th May 2015 at 08:00.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but in the mag for instance it dose not make it an option. It's black and white in the sb for magneto for oh periods. There is not an option.
I tried years ago to get Casa to give me a diffusion of the word "recommended "
They would not.
So now even under shed 5 you have to do shed 5.
I had a win in a court against Casa where they said that sb had to be down when using shed 5. I said it didn't. And it didn't at that time. But now you have too. It's that simple. As a lame we damed if we do and damed if we don't.
And at the end of the day yes it is an extra expense on the owner but you the one with your and your families with there arse in the seats.
I tried years ago to get Casa to give me a diffusion of the word "recommended "
They would not.
So now even under shed 5 you have to do shed 5.
I had a win in a court against Casa where they said that sb had to be down when using shed 5. I said it didn't. And it didn't at that time. But now you have too. It's that simple. As a lame we damed if we do and damed if we don't.
And at the end of the day yes it is an extra expense on the owner but you the one with your and your families with there arse in the seats.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but in the mag for instance it dose not make it an option. It's black and white in the sb for magneto for oh periods. There is not an option.
I tried years ago to get Casa to give me a diffusion of the word "recommended "
They would not.
So now even under shed 5 you have to do shed 5.
I had a win in a court against Casa where they said that sb had to be down when using shed 5. I said it didn't. And it didn't at that time. But now you have too. It's that simple. As a lame we damed if we do and damed if we don't.
And at the end of the day yes it is an extra expense on the owner but you the one with your and your families with there arse in the seats.
I tried years ago to get Casa to give me a diffusion of the word "recommended "
They would not.
So now even under shed 5 you have to do shed 5.
I had a win in a court against Casa where they said that sb had to be down when using shed 5. I said it didn't. And it didn't at that time. But now you have too. It's that simple. As a lame we damed if we do and damed if we don't.
And at the end of the day yes it is an extra expense on the owner but you the one with your and your families with there arse in the seats.
Doesn't matter what I think though, it is what the regs say that is important, and I am unconvinced that they say that calendar overhaul of magnetos is mandatory in private category. Maybe I am unusually dense though.
Last edited by Brainy; 30th May 2015 at 08:50.
Folks,
Put simply, what Australian REGULATION makes Service Bulletins (which are, in the US, not mandatory unless FAA makes them an AD) mandatory in Australia ---- and the question is not limited to private operations.
Tootle pip!!
Put simply, what Australian REGULATION makes Service Bulletins (which are, in the US, not mandatory unless FAA makes them an AD) mandatory in Australia ---- and the question is not limited to private operations.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the case that the magneto manufacturer said repair and replace. But what did the airframe manufacturer say. If it says o/h it is an o/h The airframe manufacturer take prescient over maintence and NOT the component manufacture. Case in point. Pt6a in say a TB700. Is a 100 maintenance schedule. Same engine in a B1900 is 200.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well no. It is call doing our job. And please explain how it benefits a lame to do this.
Look I call this sort of stuff the "oh **** manov or ". You now ask what's that.
I say when you take off and it goes putt putt rrrrrrr puttttttttt and you go "OH ****".
As for being the police please tell me how we can't be. Are you willing to pay any fines that may be placed on the lame.
At some point you as an owner will now have to make a decision if you wish to play by the rules imposed or sell and hire.
But it gets us all that it's the lame pushing this stuff.
May it's the PM fault as well. As an owner you have acces to Casa. How about next time you have a problem you stop your work shop doing it. Get it written down. Go to Casa with your complaint and get a written exception from Casa. Give it to your lame in writing. He then will not do it. Simples.
Look I call this sort of stuff the "oh **** manov or ". You now ask what's that.
I say when you take off and it goes putt putt rrrrrrr puttttttttt and you go "OH ****".
As for being the police please tell me how we can't be. Are you willing to pay any fines that may be placed on the lame.
At some point you as an owner will now have to make a decision if you wish to play by the rules imposed or sell and hire.
But it gets us all that it's the lame pushing this stuff.
May it's the PM fault as well. As an owner you have acces to Casa. How about next time you have a problem you stop your work shop doing it. Get it written down. Go to Casa with your complaint and get a written exception from Casa. Give it to your lame in writing. He then will not do it. Simples.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I think that seems to be obviously skimmed over Is the seemingly obvious acceptance of the 500Hr inspection to be carried out, but the same TCM SB643B also states "
C. In addition to the requirements listed above, magnetos must be overhauled or replaced at the expiration of five years since the date of original manufacture or last overhaul, or four years since the date the magneto was placed in service,
We don't have the liberty to pick and Choose.
A good little guide I have linked previously, with references to applicable regs and so on,
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...-operators.pdf
"Remember also that under CAR 42V (1), because all maintenance is required to be carried out in accordance
with the applicable approved data, you must still consult the manufacturer’s maintenance manuals for the airframe, engine and propeller,"
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 5
2.6 In this Part:
" general maintenance inspection " means a regular inspection and check of a class B aircraft, its systems and components that:
(a) is required by the aircraft's maintenance schedule to be carried out at regular intervals.
Many times when having components inspected on calendar time the shop has found defects which left unchecked, at best might leave you stranded away from home, at worst...
But for the most part some owners aren't made intimately aware of all of the things we find on a day to day basis on the component side of things, a cursory look at the flight safety magazine major defect reports section might give you some insight,
Any insinuation that the components are pulled off only because it's of financial benefit to us is complete rubbish and insulting, especially when we pass on the o/haul price at cost and I stlll might wait up to a year to get paid!
"If you do not follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why, and be able to explain your reasoning to an auditor or accident investigator."
CASA schedule 5 is a list of things to look at.
The manufacturers data tells you how to maintain the aircraft.
and contrary to popular belief we always try to carry out our tasks in the most cost effective way, and it's the hardest thing at times to take commercial pressures out of the decision making process.
I could ramble on, ultimately if I am aware of the Regs directing me to the manufacturers schedule, if I am aware of the SB's, AD's and so on,
For me to then knowingly ignore is negligence.
I am also acutely aware of CASA's intentions, requirements and what they expect of us to keep our CofA, because they make it plainly so in our Audits and whenever we see representatives.
C. In addition to the requirements listed above, magnetos must be overhauled or replaced at the expiration of five years since the date of original manufacture or last overhaul, or four years since the date the magneto was placed in service,
We don't have the liberty to pick and Choose.
A good little guide I have linked previously, with references to applicable regs and so on,
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...-operators.pdf
"Remember also that under CAR 42V (1), because all maintenance is required to be carried out in accordance
with the applicable approved data, you must still consult the manufacturer’s maintenance manuals for the airframe, engine and propeller,"
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 5
2.6 In this Part:
" general maintenance inspection " means a regular inspection and check of a class B aircraft, its systems and components that:
(a) is required by the aircraft's maintenance schedule to be carried out at regular intervals.
Many times when having components inspected on calendar time the shop has found defects which left unchecked, at best might leave you stranded away from home, at worst...
But for the most part some owners aren't made intimately aware of all of the things we find on a day to day basis on the component side of things, a cursory look at the flight safety magazine major defect reports section might give you some insight,
Any insinuation that the components are pulled off only because it's of financial benefit to us is complete rubbish and insulting, especially when we pass on the o/haul price at cost and I stlll might wait up to a year to get paid!
"If you do not follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why, and be able to explain your reasoning to an auditor or accident investigator."
CASA schedule 5 is a list of things to look at.
The manufacturers data tells you how to maintain the aircraft.
and contrary to popular belief we always try to carry out our tasks in the most cost effective way, and it's the hardest thing at times to take commercial pressures out of the decision making process.
I could ramble on, ultimately if I am aware of the Regs directing me to the manufacturers schedule, if I am aware of the SB's, AD's and so on,
For me to then knowingly ignore is negligence.
I am also acutely aware of CASA's intentions, requirements and what they expect of us to keep our CofA, because they make it plainly so in our Audits and whenever we see representatives.
Last edited by Perspective; 31st May 2015 at 00:18.
When I imported my last aircraft into australia it had mags that had done 225 hours but was out of calendar under the TCM manual.
Naturally I had to have them overhauled so that the aircraft could be placed on the register. At the time I wasn't very happy.
In hindsight my attitude has now changed
So unlike most here who are complaining about their magnetos Which if it wasn't for the calendar requirement would have sat round for years before reaching the magic 500 hours I am happy to comply.
Just remember NO spark NO fly
Naturally I had to have them overhauled so that the aircraft could be placed on the register. At the time I wasn't very happy.
In hindsight my attitude has now changed
So unlike most here who are complaining about their magnetos Which if it wasn't for the calendar requirement would have sat round for years before reaching the magic 500 hours I am happy to comply.
Just remember NO spark NO fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I imported my last aircraft into australia it had mags that had done 225 hours but was out of calendar under the TCM manual.
Naturally I had to have them overhauled so that the aircraft could be placed on the register. At the time I wasn't very happy.
In hindsight my attitude has now changed
So unlike most here who are complaining about their magnetos Which if it wasn't for the calendar requirement would have sat round for years before reaching the magic 500 hours I am happy to comply.
Just remember NO spark NO fly
Naturally I had to have them overhauled so that the aircraft could be placed on the register. At the time I wasn't very happy.
In hindsight my attitude has now changed
So unlike most here who are complaining about their magnetos Which if it wasn't for the calendar requirement would have sat round for years before reaching the magic 500 hours I am happy to comply.
Just remember NO spark NO fly
The issue is 'where is it mandated' that we must comply with an overhaul at 4 yrs as per the SB? The CASA document cited above states 'You are responsible for assessing each service bulletin to determine whether it should be followed or adopted'. They are NOT mandatory. ADs, and airworthiness limitations specified in the service manual are.
Therefore, if the aircraft maintenance manual does not dictate magneto overhaul at 4 yrs, and schedule 5 does not mandate that every SB be complied with, plus there is no AD mandating overhaul at 4 years, it would seem that we can continue to choose to remove, inspect and repair as necessary our magnetos at 500 hourly intervals as an alternative means of ensuring ongoing airworthiness. Am I wrong?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The real worry is what next? $600 an hour C182s are not viable."
It has to be put into context,
The old mans house was $20G in 1972, the same house sold recently for over &500G.
The hourly rate for maintenance over the last 20 years has been marginally above stagnant, yet, there are owners buying hangars "tin Sheds" half the size of ours for over half a million bucks, to which our landlord says, well if I can get x for hangerage, then this is your rent! Same to a degree for commercially run aerodromes.
The argument can be made that many other industries, such as my buddies boat shop, where the hourly rate is $110p/H have moved with the times etc.
There has to be a magic number for cost of maintenance, transparent etc, but ultimately, if we continue to barely be able to meet our overheads, then it won't be a decline of GA due to lack of interest, but rather, there won't be anyone left to do the maintenance. Look not only at the average age of LAME's, but the maintenance business owners ages, mostly in their 60's and 70's, who's coming through to replace them.
You can only fit so many workers and aircraft in a hangar and operate efficiently, so even when hours are recorded accurately, transparently, and billed, the margins are exceedingly tight.
That to me is one of the major problems with cost of GA. Yes all businesses have challenges with the cost of doing business, but when we continue to spend the same hours carrying out periodics/100hrly's, and the hourly rate stays the same, then my overheads will start to exceed our revenue. What then.
I could give many examples of industries with hourly rates well above ours, including the fishing boat example, but it is out of context unless you look at the overheads amongst other things.
And so back to Mike Busch and components, we are well aware of applying common sense, human factors and intrusion, right amount of maintenance at right time and so on, but at last check we operate under CASA's Rules and regs, I can't refer my surveyer to Mikes Law!
It has to be put into context,
The old mans house was $20G in 1972, the same house sold recently for over &500G.
The hourly rate for maintenance over the last 20 years has been marginally above stagnant, yet, there are owners buying hangars "tin Sheds" half the size of ours for over half a million bucks, to which our landlord says, well if I can get x for hangerage, then this is your rent! Same to a degree for commercially run aerodromes.
The argument can be made that many other industries, such as my buddies boat shop, where the hourly rate is $110p/H have moved with the times etc.
There has to be a magic number for cost of maintenance, transparent etc, but ultimately, if we continue to barely be able to meet our overheads, then it won't be a decline of GA due to lack of interest, but rather, there won't be anyone left to do the maintenance. Look not only at the average age of LAME's, but the maintenance business owners ages, mostly in their 60's and 70's, who's coming through to replace them.
You can only fit so many workers and aircraft in a hangar and operate efficiently, so even when hours are recorded accurately, transparently, and billed, the margins are exceedingly tight.
That to me is one of the major problems with cost of GA. Yes all businesses have challenges with the cost of doing business, but when we continue to spend the same hours carrying out periodics/100hrly's, and the hourly rate stays the same, then my overheads will start to exceed our revenue. What then.
I could give many examples of industries with hourly rates well above ours, including the fishing boat example, but it is out of context unless you look at the overheads amongst other things.
And so back to Mike Busch and components, we are well aware of applying common sense, human factors and intrusion, right amount of maintenance at right time and so on, but at last check we operate under CASA's Rules and regs, I can't refer my surveyer to Mikes Law!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, we operate under CASA's rules and regs, but these same regs do not seem to support the advice that it is now mandatory to overhaul magnetos on calendar time. Are you suggesting that the only way LAME shops are going to survive is by doing more unnecessary maintenance? Would you have surgery just because a surgeon said it was a good idea (but not required to keep you alive, safe or additionally healthy) and it maintains the viability of the surgeon's business? I have no problem paying an appropriate market rate for appropriate and properly done maintenance that allows the GA maintenance businesses to remain viable. I do not wish to spend money on maintenance that a)does not provide additional safety and additionally b) is not mandatory that it be done.
When all your GA customers disappear because they have had enough of this BS, how will your business be then? If we all just keep rolling over and taking it, that is exactly what will happen.
So, again, show me where in the regs this is mandated?
When all your GA customers disappear because they have had enough of this BS, how will your business be then? If we all just keep rolling over and taking it, that is exactly what will happen.
So, again, show me where in the regs this is mandated?