Lbs & sched 5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lbs & sched 5
A log book statement is part of every Australian VH rego aircraft. It's found in the front of a log book.
It states among other things what the maintenance of an aircraft is to be complied with.
If you use a som you must have the som approved.
Casa shed 5 is a som.
The supporting documents is the caap.
That makes the caap an approved document.
That then makes the caap a legal document.
The casa shed 5 is an appropriate som for some aircraft but not all.
But it is approved and also casa is trying to limit its use in favour of the aircraft som which is found in some but not all m/m. Shed 5 was supposed to fill those gaps.
But like a Poh not all aircraft have them.
But the caap is a legal document when used iaw your lbs.
remember IAW.
This is what all maintenance is carried out too. IAW
Your M/R States as a reflection of your lbs what your maintence is to be c/o too.
This is true for all Australian VH rego in either class A or B.
The m/r may be of different types.
It states among other things what the maintenance of an aircraft is to be complied with.
If you use a som you must have the som approved.
Casa shed 5 is a som.
The supporting documents is the caap.
That makes the caap an approved document.
That then makes the caap a legal document.
The casa shed 5 is an appropriate som for some aircraft but not all.
But it is approved and also casa is trying to limit its use in favour of the aircraft som which is found in some but not all m/m. Shed 5 was supposed to fill those gaps.
But like a Poh not all aircraft have them.
But the caap is a legal document when used iaw your lbs.
remember IAW.
This is what all maintenance is carried out too. IAW
Your M/R States as a reflection of your lbs what your maintence is to be c/o too.
This is true for all Australian VH rego in either class A or B.
The m/r may be of different types.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
experimental maintenance instructions
A log book statement is part of every Australian VH rego aircraft. It's found in the front of a log book.
It states among other things what the maintenance of an aircraft is to be complied with.
It states among other things what the maintenance of an aircraft is to be complied with.
Confusing? Oh well, there's only about 1500 or so on the register, so maybe they don't count...
Big question is when is CASA retiring Schedule 5?
(1) Never, or;
(2) When there are no more FAA certified CAR 3/4 or FAR 23 aircraft on the Australian register and all light aircraft have FAR 25 like MM, see (1).
As has been noted, time and again, Schedule 5 is not some random shopping list (yr rrrr wrong, please note) but is copied from FAR 43, Appendix D, which is, along with supporting "acceptable (not approved) data" the core of the FAA continuing airworthiness requirements for all the relevant US built aircraft.
Smart Australian workshops also have a statement in their CASA Exposition/name of choice of manual specifying FAA AC43.13A and AC43.13B as the core of how all inspections and rectifications will be carried out.
I have lost count of the number of times, over the years, that CASA have "promised" to align with the rest of the world in using the term "acceptable data", with a suitable definition, instead of "approved" data, but the micro management culture of CASA and its predecessors has guaranteed that these promises have all been broken.
The whole issue is significant, because even relatively recent FAR 23 aircraft do not have comprehensive instructions for continuing airworthiness, because the certification standards assume the use of the FAR requirements, thus the contents Appendix D, and the relevant sections of Parts 91/121/125/135/137 are not repeated in the manufacturer's manuals.
And Cessna etc. are not going to change just for the handful of aircraft sold in Australia.
Bottom line, the proper way of assuring continuing airworthiness for all the aircraft mentioned above ---- the great majority of standard C.of A aircraft in Australia ----- is to use Schedule 5, plus approved data, including the airframe manufacturer's MM, AC43.13A/B and any other necessary sources of data to complete a Schedule 5 inspection and sign off at least annually.
CASA is now so lacking in any "corporate memory" and suitably experienced people in the relevant fields that the result is some of the nonsense that is pumped out, including in CASA training of AWIs.
Before you all start shouting "This is Australia, not the US" I very strongly recommend you acquaint yourselves with CASR 21 in detail, as to how an Australian C. of A is issued, what underlies that C. of A and Type Acceptance Certificate, and what the legal situation becomes if the Type Acceptance Certificate, and hence the Australian issued C.of A is rendered invalid, because the certification standards of the country of original certification are not "maintained".
For those of you who believe CASA can do whatever they like, and bollocks to the FAA/CA/NZ/EASA etc., I refer you to S51 of the Australian Constitution and the long history of relevant litigation in the High Court of Australia, stretching back about 90 years.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line, the proper way of assuring continuing airworthiness for all the aircraft mentioned above ---- the great majority of standard C.of A aircraft in Australia ----- is to use Schedule 5, plus approved data, including the airframe manufacturer's MM, AC43.13A/B and any other necessary sources of data to complete a Schedule 5 inspection and sign off at least annually.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the detailed explanation LeadSled.
Twice now I have heard CASA reps say they will get rid of Schedule 5 as it is a liability to CASA. Last time was at a Engineers Safety seminar.
Twice now I have heard CASA reps say they will get rid of Schedule 5 as it is a liability to CASA. Last time was at a Engineers Safety seminar.
Twice now I have heard CASA reps say they will get rid of Schedule 5 as it is a liability to CASA. Last time was at a Engineers Safety seminar.
I to, have heard exactly the same thing, and sillier, and as I have said previously, it illustrates the complete loss of corporate memory in CASA, plus a large number of current employees that have embarrassingly limited knowledge of legislative history, not just nationally, but internationally. And, so clearly, any useful knowledge from outside the 12 mile limit.
That the certification basis of the bulk of our fleet is simply not understood within CASA is a very real problem, generated by the "iron ring in CASA. Dig up the available ICAO and FAA audit reports for a quite detailed exposition on the matter.
Eddie,
If the rules that were ready to go in 1999/2000 hadn't been dumped by the "iron ring" when they regained the ascendency after the PAP was closed down, none of this would be a problem, because we would have had our own Parts 91/121/125/135/137, Part 43 and Part 145, plus Part 183, very similar to NZ and US, but simplified even more, and all such matters would have been quite clear.
Just one example, the "Authority of the pilot in command" in Part 91 would have been about 10 short lines, instead of something like 6 pages in the current draft Part 91. The whole CASR Part 137 would have been about six pages ---- how many page in the current Part 137 + MOS ++???
That could have all been in place by late 2001, and it would have been all so simple and straightforward that we would never have had all the implementation and other problems of CASR Parts 61/66/141/142/145 and so on.
Fourteen years later, and look at the unworkable rubbish emerging --- witness the Part 61 debacle --- a whole new benchmark in cost and contradictory complexity, even by CASA standards.
We would also have had a situation where all relevant ACs or similar from a aircraft's country of original certification NAA (not just FAA) would automatically be acceptable data.
For example, the FAA AC that is the internationally (except Australia, of course, where you need to hire a "consultant" to plagiarize it and have it "approved" by CASA each and every time, at around $100,000 plus total for a small airline) accepted bible on corrosion detection and control would have automatically have been "acceptable data" for anybody in Australia, along with the rest of the FAA AC library and the UK etc. equivalents --- and all without the cost of consultants and CASA at $190 per hour for as many hours as CASA want to charge for "approval".
Then the matter of engine TBOs, on condition, time life, SBs, how to treat components if the OEM has different recommendations to the airframe manufacturer etc. would have all been clear and simple, as it is, by and large, in US/CA/NZ/PNG and, indeed, most of SE Asia. Actually, it is also reasonably clear in the EASA rules, which, incidentally, are absolutely nothing like Australia's non-ICAO compliant "EASA like" rules for maintenance.
Sadly, as it is now, unless an Australian maintenance org. has FAA and/or EASA approvals as well, they are largely locked out of the export markets, and that includes the US, despite the US/AU Airworthiness Bi-lateral Agreement.
NZ has no such problems. Contract flying training and third party maintenance work, to name just two, are booming in NZ.
As some of you may know, the Victorian Government has just cut all funding for TAFE aeroskills courses, about 38 apprentices have been left swinging in the breeze, things are no better in NSW --- but Government resources for apprentice AME training in NZ has been more than trebled in the last eight years -- and in NZ they wind up getting internationally accepted (including EASA) licenses.
Re. the above funding, a Victorian Government "spokesperson" actually said that there was no more need for "aircraft engineers", because all future maintenance would be done off shore --- and this from a Labor government. Sadly, the off shore bit is all too accurate.
Well done Australia, and Government's of all persuasions are equally to blame for the steady destruction of aviation in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled is accurate and its a great pity. There are dozens of job, growth and investment creating opportunities around Australia that are stillborn because of official obstruction, myopia, prejudice or all Three.
A few trivial examples from my own experience - not just aviation:
1. Mid 90's Incat wanted a new base for fast ferry manufacture. The Port of Geelog had a perfect location plus a surplus of skilled labor. The infrastructure was all there. The Point Henry Aluminium plant was even prepared to roll marine grade aluminium for it.
Killed - Geelong Council wanted apartment development on that site.
2. A study we commissioned calculated that marine recreation was worth $350 million 1995 dollars. A small marine infrastructure spend was all that was needed to triple the size to over ! billion annually.
Killed - the report was surpressed - too many NIMBY coastal property owners to offend.
3, Aerotouring in Australia? America has a network of airstrips in its national parks together with camping facilities. Will we ever see the like together with the jobs growth and investment it provides? Not a hope in hell, the Greens and CASA will see to that.
P.S. I await the announcement that the Dig Tree strip is to be permanently shut, the Greens would love to do that.
4. Point Cook as the centre of historic aviation in Australia? The RAAF museum is there,, the strip is there, the hangars and infrastructure is there. Why not open the strip to GA and attract aviation related businesses specialising in restoration and rebuilding aircraft? Then there is aerotourism associated with the museum….
After all if New Zealand can do it…..
I'm not holding my breath.
5. Why can't float planes use our major lakes and reservoirs?
Please add your favourite examples from other States.
A few trivial examples from my own experience - not just aviation:
1. Mid 90's Incat wanted a new base for fast ferry manufacture. The Port of Geelog had a perfect location plus a surplus of skilled labor. The infrastructure was all there. The Point Henry Aluminium plant was even prepared to roll marine grade aluminium for it.
Killed - Geelong Council wanted apartment development on that site.
2. A study we commissioned calculated that marine recreation was worth $350 million 1995 dollars. A small marine infrastructure spend was all that was needed to triple the size to over ! billion annually.
Killed - the report was surpressed - too many NIMBY coastal property owners to offend.
3, Aerotouring in Australia? America has a network of airstrips in its national parks together with camping facilities. Will we ever see the like together with the jobs growth and investment it provides? Not a hope in hell, the Greens and CASA will see to that.
P.S. I await the announcement that the Dig Tree strip is to be permanently shut, the Greens would love to do that.
4. Point Cook as the centre of historic aviation in Australia? The RAAF museum is there,, the strip is there, the hangars and infrastructure is there. Why not open the strip to GA and attract aviation related businesses specialising in restoration and rebuilding aircraft? Then there is aerotourism associated with the museum….
After all if New Zealand can do it…..
I'm not holding my breath.
5. Why can't float planes use our major lakes and reservoirs?
Please add your favourite examples from other States.
Sunfish, on this you are so right.
Ref #5: in NSW the water board severely restricts entry to lakes used for water supply. Lake Burragorang is beautiful from the air, would be fantastic for bushwalking, kayaking, sailing,fishing etc. With only a fairly small budget it would be a huge tourist attraction. But ohh no, you can't go there, it is "water board" land.
(Like koalas and roos don't ****, piss and die there!)
Ref #5: in NSW the water board severely restricts entry to lakes used for water supply. Lake Burragorang is beautiful from the air, would be fantastic for bushwalking, kayaking, sailing,fishing etc. With only a fairly small budget it would be a huge tourist attraction. But ohh no, you can't go there, it is "water board" land.
(Like koalas and roos don't ****, piss and die there!)
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
specifying FAA AC43.13A and AC43.13B as the core of how all inspections and rectifications will be carried out.
Eddie,
You are very probably correct, but some AWIs are not aware, in one recent case a LAME was taken to task because the particular AWI did not accept the fact that the existing detailed workshop approval included AC 43.13A/B --- all too typical of 50 AWIs equals 50 or more interpretation of the "rules".
At one stage (2006/7??) we had an instrument that declared the whole FAA AC library was approve data, to eliminate the "approval industry". Byron was the DAS at the time. The instrument Issue 1 came from Greg Vaughan.
It was reissued once by Mark Sinclair, but when the "new" crew (you in CASA know who I am referring to) took over, not only did they not re-issue the same Instrument again (most have a time limit imposed by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003) but the replacement Issue 3 completely reversed the intent, and specifically requiring CASA approval (at great expense) for each and every FAA AC for each and every individual workshop.
Ergo, "approval industry" back in full swing, with all the associated costs and delays.
Tootle pip!!
You are very probably correct, but some AWIs are not aware, in one recent case a LAME was taken to task because the particular AWI did not accept the fact that the existing detailed workshop approval included AC 43.13A/B --- all too typical of 50 AWIs equals 50 or more interpretation of the "rules".
At one stage (2006/7??) we had an instrument that declared the whole FAA AC library was approve data, to eliminate the "approval industry". Byron was the DAS at the time. The instrument Issue 1 came from Greg Vaughan.
It was reissued once by Mark Sinclair, but when the "new" crew (you in CASA know who I am referring to) took over, not only did they not re-issue the same Instrument again (most have a time limit imposed by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003) but the replacement Issue 3 completely reversed the intent, and specifically requiring CASA approval (at great expense) for each and every FAA AC for each and every individual workshop.
Ergo, "approval industry" back in full swing, with all the associated costs and delays.
Tootle pip!!
AC43.1B
AWB for use of AC43 is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...awb/02/045.pdf
Under Part 42 system (Chapter 9 in the MOS) certain documents are "industry standards" for the purpose of approved maintenance data:
9.2.1 The following list specifies the documents that are aviation industry standards for the definition of maintenance data in the CASR dictionary:
LIST
1. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 43.13 1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices — Aircraft Inspection and Repair.
2. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 43.13 2B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices — Aircraft Alterations.
3. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 65-9A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics General Handbook.
4. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular FAA AC-65-15A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Airframe Handbook.
5. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 65-12A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Powerplant Handbook.
the inclusion of the A&P mechanics handbooks is surprising to me as some of the data is less than perfect in here as is the lack of "corrosion prevention and control manual". A concerted effort by industry could possibly result in inclusion of the latter.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...awb/02/045.pdf
Under Part 42 system (Chapter 9 in the MOS) certain documents are "industry standards" for the purpose of approved maintenance data:
9.2.1 The following list specifies the documents that are aviation industry standards for the definition of maintenance data in the CASR dictionary:
LIST
1. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 43.13 1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices — Aircraft Inspection and Repair.
2. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 43.13 2B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices — Aircraft Alterations.
3. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 65-9A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics General Handbook.
4. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular FAA AC-65-15A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Airframe Handbook.
5. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 65-12A [Large AC], Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics Powerplant Handbook.
the inclusion of the A&P mechanics handbooks is surprising to me as some of the data is less than perfect in here as is the lack of "corrosion prevention and control manual". A concerted effort by industry could possibly result in inclusion of the latter.
Eddie,
That list only includes AC 43.13.1B, not .1A, and if Instrument CASA 63/13 is still current ( I have not checked) even the use of 1B is pretty limited and still requires approval in individual cases.
As previously mentioned, the Vaughan and Sinclair instruments were of far wider and unrestricted application.
Also, there is the not insignificant matter of the application of Part 42:
42.010 Applicability of Part
Subject to Subpart 202.BA, this Part applies to:
(a) a registered aircraft; and
(b) an aeronautical product for a registered aircraft.
Note 1: For the definition of registered, see Part 1 of the Dictionary.
Note 2: Subpart 202.BA contains application and transitional provisions for this Part. Under regulation 202.181, this Part applies to the following:
(a) a registered aircraft that is authorised to operate under an AOC issued for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206(1)(c) of CAR;
(b) a registered aircraft for which an election under regulation 202.181 is in force;
(c) an aeronautical product for an aircraft mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a Part 145 organisation that is providing maintenance services for an aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);
(e) an independent maintainer mentioned in item 4 or 5 of table 42.300 who is carrying out maintenance on an aircraft mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
Don'tcha just love the simplicity and clarity of Australian regulations!!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: If Part 42/145 is applied to Part 135 aircraft, as is currently proposed, that will be another large slab of GA eliminated.
That list only includes AC 43.13.1B, not .1A, and if Instrument CASA 63/13 is still current ( I have not checked) even the use of 1B is pretty limited and still requires approval in individual cases.
As previously mentioned, the Vaughan and Sinclair instruments were of far wider and unrestricted application.
Also, there is the not insignificant matter of the application of Part 42:
42.010 Applicability of Part
Subject to Subpart 202.BA, this Part applies to:
(a) a registered aircraft; and
(b) an aeronautical product for a registered aircraft.
Note 1: For the definition of registered, see Part 1 of the Dictionary.
Note 2: Subpart 202.BA contains application and transitional provisions for this Part. Under regulation 202.181, this Part applies to the following:
(a) a registered aircraft that is authorised to operate under an AOC issued for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206(1)(c) of CAR;
(b) a registered aircraft for which an election under regulation 202.181 is in force;
(c) an aeronautical product for an aircraft mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a Part 145 organisation that is providing maintenance services for an aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);
(e) an independent maintainer mentioned in item 4 or 5 of table 42.300 who is carrying out maintenance on an aircraft mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
Don'tcha just love the simplicity and clarity of Australian regulations!!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: If Part 42/145 is applied to Part 135 aircraft, as is currently proposed, that will be another large slab of GA eliminated.
Part 42 and AC43
PS: If Part 42/145 is applied to Part 135 aircraft, as is currently proposed, that will be another large slab of GA eliminated.
Not quite true non 42 are currently covered under the AWB I mentioned.
RPT aircraft are covered under part 42 as are any charter ops who elect to use part 42 under Subpart 202.181.
When Charter/airwork are forced to go 42/145 they will transition from being covered by the AWB to being covered by part 42 para 9.2.1, so no actual change in use of AC43.
Note also that AC43.1A was superseded by AC43.1B and hence CASA does not list 1A. This also aplies to 2A now superseded by 2B.
Not quite true non 42 are currently covered under the AWB I mentioned.
RPT aircraft are covered under part 42 as are any charter ops who elect to use part 42 under Subpart 202.181.
When Charter/airwork are forced to go 42/145 they will transition from being covered by the AWB to being covered by part 42 para 9.2.1, so no actual change in use of AC43.
Note also that AC43.1A was superseded by AC43.1B and hence CASA does not list 1A. This also aplies to 2A now superseded by 2B.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez guys,
all this part this and part that, and subsection this and subsection that, and appendix this and appendix that, is doing my head in.
Is there a defense in law, that not even Jesus Christ himself, or Allah if your of the other persuasion, could possibly hope to understand this stuff, let alone understand what it means, or how to comply with it?
I mean really!! all we want to do is run our businesses, provide the best and "SAFEST" service to our ever dwindling customers and comply with the law.
We PAY $$$ for this STUFF, is it too much to ask that the organization we pay to produce this "STUFF" at least employs people who are competent and able to write "STUFF", that ordinary people have at least a chance of understanding???
Is it too much to ask?? hey we are paying for it!!
Could we go to consumer affairs and say we've been duded, sort it out??
all this part this and part that, and subsection this and subsection that, and appendix this and appendix that, is doing my head in.
Is there a defense in law, that not even Jesus Christ himself, or Allah if your of the other persuasion, could possibly hope to understand this stuff, let alone understand what it means, or how to comply with it?
I mean really!! all we want to do is run our businesses, provide the best and "SAFEST" service to our ever dwindling customers and comply with the law.
We PAY $$$ for this STUFF, is it too much to ask that the organization we pay to produce this "STUFF" at least employs people who are competent and able to write "STUFF", that ordinary people have at least a chance of understanding???
Is it too much to ask?? hey we are paying for it!!
Could we go to consumer affairs and say we've been duded, sort it out??
PS: If Part 42/145 is applied to Part 135 aircraft, as is currently proposed, that will be another large slab of GA eliminated.
The intent of this comment was general, requiring something like a Cessna 206 used on Part 135 to be maintained under a Part 42/145 system will be a quantum leap in already high Australian mainteance costs, without any demonstrable risk reduction (safety) benefits.
Small maintenance outfits should be on the threatened species register, no small maintainer can afford the cost of establishing a Part 145 shop, let alone find customers who can afford the necessary rates to sustain the additional costs.
Thorny,
You should know by now that the CASA policy of "We're not happy 'till your not happy" is not just a BBA joke.
Tootle pip!!
PS: That AC 43.13.1A is no longer with us is noted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now try and work within these rules. Like I've said you can be brave when you don't have to sign for.
What should a log book statement look like? Can anyone give me examples?
My own intention is Schd 5 plus the propeller and engine manufacturers ( and other component suppliers) maintenance manuals….and of course the AC's.
What scares me is getting into a "lock in" situation where I cannot maintain things myself (within reason), or a situation where what was legal yesterday is not legal today,.
My own intention is Schd 5 plus the propeller and engine manufacturers ( and other component suppliers) maintenance manuals….and of course the AC's.
What scares me is getting into a "lock in" situation where I cannot maintain things myself (within reason), or a situation where what was legal yesterday is not legal today,.