17th Jun 2016, 12:18 - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
What will happen to non compliant SIDS aircraft?
Folks,
Just to add to my previous post, the FAA maintenance requirements for aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 determine what has to be done, FAR Part 43 tells you how to do it, and the relevance of the manufacturer's maintenance manual is NOT the same as here ------ the argy-bargy I referred to in the previous post alludes to the FAA rejecting the SIDS in MMM as being mandatory.
FAA determined that the original certification plus subsequent ADs determines the airworthiness of the aircraft ---- effectively FAA said that making the MMM SIDS mandatory for a Part 91 aircraft amounted to retrospective re-certification, and not on.
But CASA does not differentiate operational usage, and the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual and all who sail in her has almost biblical significance to CASA, it would seem, hence "one size fits all".
If you are operating under FAR Parts 121/125/135 the maintenance requirements will flow from that Part, and will be more extensive than Part 91 --- which is largely Private and much of what we would call Airwork.
In short, graduated risk management --- anathema to CASA.
Last time I looked, NZ followed the US --- NOT Australia.
So, the bottom line is --- blame CASA for this expensive write-off of aircraft ---- "Safety is our first (and only) priority" and to hell with the costs.
A result of S.9A of the Act, and the amendments proposed by Minister MickMac changes nothing ----- unlike the amendments agreed between Barnaby Joyce, Anthony Albanese and Dick Smith, which at least had some prospect of making a difference.
Tootle pip!!
Just to add to my previous post, the FAA maintenance requirements for aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 determine what has to be done, FAR Part 43 tells you how to do it, and the relevance of the manufacturer's maintenance manual is NOT the same as here ------ the argy-bargy I referred to in the previous post alludes to the FAA rejecting the SIDS in MMM as being mandatory.
FAA determined that the original certification plus subsequent ADs determines the airworthiness of the aircraft ---- effectively FAA said that making the MMM SIDS mandatory for a Part 91 aircraft amounted to retrospective re-certification, and not on.
But CASA does not differentiate operational usage, and the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual and all who sail in her has almost biblical significance to CASA, it would seem, hence "one size fits all".
If you are operating under FAR Parts 121/125/135 the maintenance requirements will flow from that Part, and will be more extensive than Part 91 --- which is largely Private and much of what we would call Airwork.
In short, graduated risk management --- anathema to CASA.
Last time I looked, NZ followed the US --- NOT Australia.
So, the bottom line is --- blame CASA for this expensive write-off of aircraft ---- "Safety is our first (and only) priority" and to hell with the costs.
A result of S.9A of the Act, and the amendments proposed by Minister MickMac changes nothing ----- unlike the amendments agreed between Barnaby Joyce, Anthony Albanese and Dick Smith, which at least had some prospect of making a difference.
Tootle pip!!
