Maintenance Schedule
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWB 72 - 007
Just now received the AWB for calculating OH time for part life PT6 engines coming onto an existing extension program. Is this mandatory or something else?
They seem to be referring you back to the manufacturers data.
It is how you are meant to calculate it and it is the mandatory way to calculate it, unless another method at the time was approved or will be approved in the future.
It is how you are meant to calculate it and it is the mandatory way to calculate it, unless another method at the time was approved or will be approved in the future.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conned Rod,
Actually, if you learn to read and comprehend, that is not what I have said, at all. I even quoted from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 on the precise definitions of both, as the starting point to understanding, then followed with just several examples of the contradictions, but that was obviously beyond you.
https://www.aqf.edu.au/
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/
https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/asse...ng-system-2849
You are entitled to your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to your own FACTS.
I don’t have “interpretations” of facts. To assist your further education on the subject I have posted several links, above. Hopefully you may obtain some glimmer of understanding of what “engineer” means as a real professional description.
The starting point to be recognised as what is generally recognised as an professional “engineer” is to meet the requirement for Membership of Engineers Australia. Briefly, a minimum of a Bachelor Degree plus acceptable post graduate experience is the minimum requirement to be admitted as a Member.
That, as a definition, is enshrined in widespread state and Commonwealth legislation, as the minimum qualifications to produce a swathe of engineering certification. Or, where required by law, to be registered as an Engineer.
This is effectively the minimum to be recognised by CASA as what was a “CAR 35” Engineer.
Medicine and the law have virtually exact counterparts, in NSW a person cannot gain a practicing certificate as a Solicitor, unless they meet the requirement of the Law Society of NSW, which is a minimum of a Bachelor Degree or equivalent plus required post graduate training. Likewise, medicine and many other professions.
In my case, I have the equivalent of what is, under the Australian Quality Framework, a Diploma of Engineering, I would never describe myself as an engineer. As inexplicable as it probably seems to you that a "bus driver" could, I sat on the ANTA aviation skills advisory body for a number of years.
In the aviation case, what has turned up in legislation is a wonderful case of like-minded tradesmen (or ex-military non-comms) within and without the national regulator of the day indulging in a bit of “enhanced job description”, enshrining it in regulation, and claiming the title.
What you are classified as by Fair Work Australia (or various organisations going back to the old Arbitration Commission) is more accurate --- you are a tradesman, having (probably) been through a trade school/TAFE/vocational training , and achieved the necessary combination of trade skills and experience.
There are any number of quite amusing example of such inflation, our local council dog catcher becoming a “Pest Control Engineer”, and railway engine drivers in the US are long known as “locomotive engineers”. All relatively harmless affectations, and not recognised by knowledgeable persons for anything other than what they are.
I note that FAA refer variously to “Aviation Maintenance Technicians” or just “A&P” , EASA generally to persons who are Aircraft Maintenance Licence holders.
Tootle pip!!
Our dear bus driver has posted numerous times now that servicing is not considered by casa and that its only a faa thing.
Please advise me were i may find your interpretation of the word engineer in law.
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/
https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/asse...ng-system-2849
You are entitled to your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to your own FACTS.
I don’t have “interpretations” of facts. To assist your further education on the subject I have posted several links, above. Hopefully you may obtain some glimmer of understanding of what “engineer” means as a real professional description.
The starting point to be recognised as what is generally recognised as an professional “engineer” is to meet the requirement for Membership of Engineers Australia. Briefly, a minimum of a Bachelor Degree plus acceptable post graduate experience is the minimum requirement to be admitted as a Member.
That, as a definition, is enshrined in widespread state and Commonwealth legislation, as the minimum qualifications to produce a swathe of engineering certification. Or, where required by law, to be registered as an Engineer.
This is effectively the minimum to be recognised by CASA as what was a “CAR 35” Engineer.
Medicine and the law have virtually exact counterparts, in NSW a person cannot gain a practicing certificate as a Solicitor, unless they meet the requirement of the Law Society of NSW, which is a minimum of a Bachelor Degree or equivalent plus required post graduate training. Likewise, medicine and many other professions.
In my case, I have the equivalent of what is, under the Australian Quality Framework, a Diploma of Engineering, I would never describe myself as an engineer. As inexplicable as it probably seems to you that a "bus driver" could, I sat on the ANTA aviation skills advisory body for a number of years.
In the aviation case, what has turned up in legislation is a wonderful case of like-minded tradesmen (or ex-military non-comms) within and without the national regulator of the day indulging in a bit of “enhanced job description”, enshrining it in regulation, and claiming the title.
What you are classified as by Fair Work Australia (or various organisations going back to the old Arbitration Commission) is more accurate --- you are a tradesman, having (probably) been through a trade school/TAFE/vocational training , and achieved the necessary combination of trade skills and experience.
There are any number of quite amusing example of such inflation, our local council dog catcher becoming a “Pest Control Engineer”, and railway engine drivers in the US are long known as “locomotive engineers”. All relatively harmless affectations, and not recognised by knowledgeable persons for anything other than what they are.
I note that FAA refer variously to “Aviation Maintenance Technicians” or just “A&P” , EASA generally to persons who are Aircraft Maintenance Licence holders.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 12th Dec 2017 at 02:09.
Leadsled well stated
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Leadsled well stated
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Well we can all show you a few CAR 35 drawings - with massive errors.
But many say you design/build it and we will do the drawings and approvals (some of the biggest in Australia).
Then there are others that defuel for a reweigh, then drain from every drain - then add the unusable fuel for the reweigh!
When the fuel pump stops pumping fuel Mr CAR 35 - the remaining is unusable!!!! and a fix amount for each aircraft type - you don't add the unusable!
But he did go to Uni.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled well stated
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Years ago I was told by a LAME he knew more about structures ie wing spar repairs than me a mere aircraft owner and pilot.
A little while later after the heat had died down I brought in my Structural Engineering Degree and association membership certificate. Instant silence.
Yes he probably had more hands on experience but in the world of aviation could only follow what the CAR 35 engineer designed.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we can all show you a few CAR 35 drawings - with massive errors.
But many say you design/build it and we will do the drawings and approvals (some of the biggest in Australia).
Then there are others that defuel for a reweigh, then drain from every drain - then add the unusable fuel for the reweigh!
When the fuel pump stops pumping fuel Mr CAR 35 - the remaining is unusable!!!! and a fix amount for each aircraft type - you don't add the unusable!
But he did go to Uni.
But many say you design/build it and we will do the drawings and approvals (some of the biggest in Australia).
Then there are others that defuel for a reweigh, then drain from every drain - then add the unusable fuel for the reweigh!
When the fuel pump stops pumping fuel Mr CAR 35 - the remaining is unusable!!!! and a fix amount for each aircraft type - you don't add the unusable!
But he did go to Uni.
We under federal law for a start. And its stated in law.
So we still have not been told your relevant qualifications in regrads to aircraft certification final or otherwise.
You also forgot to mention the amount of casa exams just to get a basic lic in the old system we had to do.
Leadie
You need to go back and read what you stated about maintenance and serviceing. I have quoted diect from the car,s the difference in the definitions. If you choose not to read that though it seams.
Just face it you filled this forum with mis trurths all i done was shown you facts.
Until the federal law is changed i and every lame will be classed as engineers.
Mmm what about a flight engineer.
Your lack of knowledge is showing again.
In this case the term derives from military usage, the Royal Engineers, not civilian, including the fact that those who were "Flight Engineers" had the Royal Purple of an Engineering Officer between the gold bars.
You also forgot to mention the amount of casa exams just to get a basic lic in the old system we had to do.
Until the federal law is changed i and every lame will be classed as engineers.
I know of one car 35 that didnt go to uni to get his.
As for rest of your recent (or any) posts, you really should learn to read and comprehend plain English.
Tootle pip!!
Personally I don't give a rats. When asked what I do for a living - "I fix planes"
But a pilot wont answer - "I fly planes" - it is "I am a pilot".
It is a job guys and one can not do without the other, so stop waving the willy of I'm better/more educated or passed harder tests than you stuff.
Because with little help from CAsA in maintenance and flying, Australia holds a pretty good standard when stacked up with the rest of the World.
But our design staff probably have too many CAsA regulations to be as efficient as they could be, and sadly a few seem to have education that could be better used away from aviation in my view, for the safety of others.
But a pilot wont answer - "I fly planes" - it is "I am a pilot".
It is a job guys and one can not do without the other, so stop waving the willy of I'm better/more educated or passed harder tests than you stuff.
Because with little help from CAsA in maintenance and flying, Australia holds a pretty good standard when stacked up with the rest of the World.
But our design staff probably have too many CAsA regulations to be as efficient as they could be, and sadly a few seem to have education that could be better used away from aviation in my view, for the safety of others.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conned Rod,
Your lack of knowledge is showing again.
In this case the term derives from military usage, the Royal Engineers, not civilian, including the fact that those who were "Flight Engineers" had the Royal Purple of an Engineering Officer between the gold bars.
Totally irrelevant comment, it is quality (depth of knowledge) not quantity of exams that counts. The academic achievement minimum to pass such exams is not high.
As I have already illustrated, Fair Work Australia and EA does not put you in the same category as a professional engineers, but if it makes you happy deluding yourself, fill your boots.
Probably one of the two I knew, both obtained fraudulently, while working for CASA or a predecessor, didn't work out well for either.
As for rest of your recent (or any) posts, you really should learn to read and comprehend plain English.
Tootle pip!!
Your lack of knowledge is showing again.
In this case the term derives from military usage, the Royal Engineers, not civilian, including the fact that those who were "Flight Engineers" had the Royal Purple of an Engineering Officer between the gold bars.
Totally irrelevant comment, it is quality (depth of knowledge) not quantity of exams that counts. The academic achievement minimum to pass such exams is not high.
As I have already illustrated, Fair Work Australia and EA does not put you in the same category as a professional engineers, but if it makes you happy deluding yourself, fill your boots.
Probably one of the two I knew, both obtained fraudulently, while working for CASA or a predecessor, didn't work out well for either.
As for rest of your recent (or any) posts, you really should learn to read and comprehend plain English.
Tootle pip!!
I had purple with gold bars as well so what.
More to the point where did purple come from.
Oh btw im sure you wouldnt say that to there faces, and tghe person im taliking about was more than capable.
Toot toot tootie pie
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly leadie
You continue to attack me on my english and my understanding of it.
So if im so bad what is your excuse.
You still have not provided one demonstration of any type of certification in regrads to maintenance .
You clearly have little or no understanding of the regulations in regrads to maintenance which has been proven in this thread.
You cant even remember what you say on this subject even tnough its written here.
But i just because your so full of yourself you believe that everything you say is correct and the fact you can be proven wrong by a dyslexic fuk like myself must ripe you.
You still not shown a law in regrads to engineer not some site.
Ie car mentions lame in law.
So provide a law paper that says you have to go to uni to be called an engineer.
Toot toot tootie pie
You continue to attack me on my english and my understanding of it.
So if im so bad what is your excuse.
You still have not provided one demonstration of any type of certification in regrads to maintenance .
You clearly have little or no understanding of the regulations in regrads to maintenance which has been proven in this thread.
You cant even remember what you say on this subject even tnough its written here.
But i just because your so full of yourself you believe that everything you say is correct and the fact you can be proven wrong by a dyslexic fuk like myself must ripe you.
You still not shown a law in regrads to engineer not some site.
Ie car mentions lame in law.
So provide a law paper that says you have to go to uni to be called an engineer.
Toot toot tootie pie
So provide a law paper that says you have to go to uni to be called an engineer.
Open and read the links already provided, the answers are all there, but it does require the ability to read and comprehend.
As does your understanding of my other posts, which, clearly, many other readers have been able to comprehend.
However, you prefer your continuous denigration, so much easier than the facts.
As I said in another post, you are entitled to your own opinions (no matter how ratbag or offensive they may be) but you are not entitled to your own facts, whether it is aviation law or any other law.
Tootle pip!!
Oh btw im sure you wouldnt say that to there faces,
and tghe person im taliking about was more than capable.