Maintenance Schedule
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conner Rod,
The answer to all of the above is that the answers are irrelevant to the discussion in hand --- if, as we are expected to believe, you are a LAME, I have a couple of questions for you:
A lawyer, whether employed by CASA or other wise, is not qualified to write an opinion on aviation law if it relates to maintenance, unless they are a
The aviation law is what it is, not what you think it is, or what you or anybody else would like
PS 1: As it happens, the answer to two ( and probably three) of your questions may surprise you, it is YES --- as, along with many other non-LAMEs, I have had specific maintenance approvals to do what would have otherwise required a LAME or approved person with appropriate qualifications.
PS 2: Does a Maintenance Controller have to be a LAME?
PS 3: There is no contradiction in an AWB containing an acceptable means of compliance, any more than a CAAP or AC, but you still have the flexibility of having an alternative means of compliance negotiated with CASA. But none of the three is L-A-W. This very simple concept seems to be a mystery to you. And yes, I do know the legal status of an S/B or so called MSB, including the latest FAA legal determinations of their status, which has had a significant impact on Cessna's approach to such matters, do you??
The answer to all of the above is that the answers are irrelevant to the discussion in hand --- if, as we are expected to believe, you are a LAME, I have a couple of questions for you:
A lawyer, whether employed by CASA or other wise, is not qualified to write an opinion on aviation law if it relates to maintenance, unless they are a
The aviation law is what it is, not what you think it is, or what you or anybody else would like
PS 1: As it happens, the answer to two ( and probably three) of your questions may surprise you, it is YES --- as, along with many other non-LAMEs, I have had specific maintenance approvals to do what would have otherwise required a LAME or approved person with appropriate qualifications.
PS 2: Does a Maintenance Controller have to be a LAME?
PS 3: There is no contradiction in an AWB containing an acceptable means of compliance, any more than a CAAP or AC, but you still have the flexibility of having an alternative means of compliance negotiated with CASA. But none of the three is L-A-W. This very simple concept seems to be a mystery to you. And yes, I do know the legal status of an S/B or so called MSB, including the latest FAA legal determinations of their status, which has had a significant impact on Cessna's approach to such matters, do you??
Really well do tell.
No a maintenance controller dose not have to be an lame. How ever he MUST BE APPROVED BY THE THE REGULATORY ATHOURTITY in class A and B. A lame dose not for B but has to be for A.
Faa has notning to do with Australia unless it is an ad.
Please answer the questions given in full. Especially thoose on sb si and msb in regrad to Australian regulations.
If you dont think im a lame i really not worried at all. We just lucky that boeing made great and just about fool proof aircraft for the likes of your self.
Btw. Any one may make comment on any aviation law. But the change must be approved via the parliament before it can be law. The only expection to tnis is an emergency AD which is consided to be of extreme saftey.
Also since ypur such an expert on everything .
If tbe for example faa or yasa produce an ad is it instant law in australia.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you pass yourself as some sort of expert on all things leadie,
So what is the min and max time in hours you can release a aircraft and time as in days years months you can release an aircraft
So what is the min and max time in hours you can release a aircraft and time as in days years months you can release an aircraft
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conner Rod,
The answer to all of the above is that the answers are irrelevant to the discussion in hand --- if, as we are expected to believe, you are a LAME, I have a couple of questions for you:
A lawyer, whether employed by CASA or other wise, is not qualified to write an opinion on aviation law if it relates to maintenance, unless they are a LAME.
Yes/No
No other person is qualified to speak on aviation law if it relates to maintenance unless they are a LAME.
Yes/No.
In short, your argument above is specious and invalid. Ask a lawyer what "jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest" means.
The aviation law is what it
PS 3: There is no contradiction in an AWB containing an acceptable means of compliance, any more than a CAAP or AC, but you still have the flexibility of having an alternative means of compliance negotiated with CASA. But none of the three is L-A-W. This very simple concept seems to be a mystery to you. And yes, I do know the legal status of an S/B or so called MSB, including the latest FAA legal determinations of their status, which has had a significant impact on Cessna's approach to such matters, do you??
The answer to all of the above is that the answers are irrelevant to the discussion in hand --- if, as we are expected to believe, you are a LAME, I have a couple of questions for you:
A lawyer, whether employed by CASA or other wise, is not qualified to write an opinion on aviation law if it relates to maintenance, unless they are a LAME.
Yes/No
No other person is qualified to speak on aviation law if it relates to maintenance unless they are a LAME.
Yes/No.
In short, your argument above is specious and invalid. Ask a lawyer what "jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest" means.
The aviation law is what it
PS 3: There is no contradiction in an AWB containing an acceptable means of compliance, any more than a CAAP or AC, but you still have the flexibility of having an alternative means of compliance negotiated with CASA. But none of the three is L-A-W. This very simple concept seems to be a mystery to you. And yes, I do know the legal status of an S/B or so called MSB, including the latest FAA legal determinations of their status, which has had a significant impact on Cessna's approach to such matters, do you??
You are totally incorrect. Whislt it may be all good when all is well, when it happens to go pear shaped and there is no other documents other than ac or awb they become the approved document. You really not to stop with your incorrect b/s. You really dont have a clue at all how maintenance and the law are inter twinned in the complexity of the the whole system.
One might surgest you actually go and work in a workshop and actully shut the f up an learn something. But im sure know one would give you entry into there shops.
You are becoming dangerous to the extreme with your absolute lack of knowledge and understanding of these particular subject.
when it happens to go pear shaped and there is no other documents other than ac or awb they become the approved document.
Clearly, you do not understand the legal status of a CAAP, AC or AWB, as may be applicable, they are all an acceptable means of compliance, as may be applicable, to whatever the matter is to be done.
So with your finely honed legal brain, would you like to explain the subtle difference between a CASA "acceptable means of compliance" and an "approved document", where it relates to the contents of the document, to the enthralled multitudes.
Or, by any chance, do you think the contents of a CAAP, AC or AWB is not, by some strange transmogrification, "CASA approved" unless CASA separately says it is "approved"???
Got a list of "unapproved" CAAPs, ACs and AWBs, have you??
You really dont have a clue at all how maintenance and the law are inter twinned in the complexity of the the whole system.
With all your increasingly shrill assertions, and rather pathetic attempts at personally denigrating me, NOT ONCE, have you produced any proof of your assertions, which, I would guess, most readers would find quite a telling argument as to the veracity or otherwise of your assertions.
All the below from the CASA web site:
Our Civil Aviation Advisory Publications (CAAPs) provide guidance and explanatory information about the meaning of certain requirements in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR). They may also describe methods to help you comply with a CAR requirement in a manner that would be acceptable to an authorised person or CASA.
CAAPs are advisory; they should always be read in conjunction with the referenced CAR.
CAAPs are advisory; they should always be read in conjunction with the referenced CAR.
Advisory Circulars (ACs) provide advice and guidance to explain particular regulatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) or associated Manual of Standards (MOS).
An AC should always be read in conjunction with the referring regulations. It should still be read as guidance material even if referred to in a ‘Note’ below the regulation.
An AC should always be read in conjunction with the referring regulations. It should still be read as guidance material even if referred to in a ‘Note’ below the regulation.
AWB 00-001 Issue 3 - Airworthiness Bulletins
Description: An Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) is issued to inform the aviation public, in a systematic way, of essential information not considered mandatory. The information contained in an AWB is for information only, and issued by CASA to disseminate information as quickly and as clearly as possible.
Description: An Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) is issued to inform the aviation public, in a systematic way, of essential information not considered mandatory. The information contained in an AWB is for information only, and issued by CASA to disseminate information as quickly and as clearly as possible.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Faa has notning to do with Australia unless it is an ad.
Last edited by LeadSled; 25th Nov 2017 at 06:00.
Mate if your engine had 2550 hours on it and was in the condition you said ( I assume there was zero leakage from the valves during comp check) then certainly can be released again for 100 hrs or less if you wish.
The fire extinguisher - now that is a item fitted permanently to your aircraft, possibly post from the factory without an EO to fit it as it was done years ago.
* So that is a dilemma in its self, but the fire extinguisher as with every component in an aircraft has inspection and maintenance requirements. If the airframe manufacture does not list these compliance times you then go to the component manufacturer for this info. Many have a 6 month inspection inc a reweigh that needs to be done with calibrated scales and some have a monthly check also.
* Now many persons that have say Charter C210's use CAsA schedule 5 - but they must do that 6 month reweigh on the fire extinguisher or that aircraft is illegal to fly.
So where is the LAW that says a charter aircraft on CAsA Shedule 5 requires a fire extinguisher to be reweighed but a private aircraft not - NB a private aircraft does not require one to be fitted but if fitted it must be maintained.
The fire extinguisher - now that is a item fitted permanently to your aircraft, possibly post from the factory without an EO to fit it as it was done years ago.
* So that is a dilemma in its self, but the fire extinguisher as with every component in an aircraft has inspection and maintenance requirements. If the airframe manufacture does not list these compliance times you then go to the component manufacturer for this info. Many have a 6 month inspection inc a reweigh that needs to be done with calibrated scales and some have a monthly check also.
* Now many persons that have say Charter C210's use CAsA schedule 5 - but they must do that 6 month reweigh on the fire extinguisher or that aircraft is illegal to fly.
So where is the LAW that says a charter aircraft on CAsA Shedule 5 requires a fire extinguisher to be reweighed but a private aircraft not - NB a private aircraft does not require one to be fitted but if fitted it must be maintained.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conned Rod,
Clearly, you do not understand the legal status of a CAAP, AC or AWB, as may be applicable, they are all an acceptable means of compliance, as may be applicable, to whatever the matter is to be done.
So with your finely honed legal brain, would you like to explain the subtle difference between a CASA "acceptable means of compliance" and an "approved document", where it relates to the contents of the document, to the enthralled multitudes.
Or, by any chance, do you think the contents of a CAAP, AC or AWB is not, by some strange transmogrification, "CASA approved" unless CASA separately says it is "approved"???
Got a list of "unapproved" CAAPs, ACs and AWBs, have you??
I would hazard a guess that most people reading this thread would make that comment about you.
With all your increasingly shrill assertions, and rather pathetic attempts at personally denigrating me, NOT ONCE, have you produced any proof of your assertions, which, I would guess, most readers would find quite a telling argument as to the veracity or otherwise of your assertions.
All the below from the CASA web site:
But maybe CASA's got it all wrong, as well as me??? Every CASA publication is "CASA approved" withing the limits of the intent of the document.
Tootle pip!!
PS:I suppose I should not be surprised, but you really should have a look at CASR 23, (indeed CASA 21-35) and if you had an in-depth understanding of certification, and the impact of any FAA actions on Australian aircraft originally certified in US by FAA, you might understand. In the case of certain Cessna aircraft, and their ongoing airworthiness, the FAA decision referred to, directly affects Australian aircraft.
Clearly, you do not understand the legal status of a CAAP, AC or AWB, as may be applicable, they are all an acceptable means of compliance, as may be applicable, to whatever the matter is to be done.
So with your finely honed legal brain, would you like to explain the subtle difference between a CASA "acceptable means of compliance" and an "approved document", where it relates to the contents of the document, to the enthralled multitudes.
Or, by any chance, do you think the contents of a CAAP, AC or AWB is not, by some strange transmogrification, "CASA approved" unless CASA separately says it is "approved"???
Got a list of "unapproved" CAAPs, ACs and AWBs, have you??
I would hazard a guess that most people reading this thread would make that comment about you.
With all your increasingly shrill assertions, and rather pathetic attempts at personally denigrating me, NOT ONCE, have you produced any proof of your assertions, which, I would guess, most readers would find quite a telling argument as to the veracity or otherwise of your assertions.
All the below from the CASA web site:
But maybe CASA's got it all wrong, as well as me??? Every CASA publication is "CASA approved" withing the limits of the intent of the document.
Tootle pip!!
PS:I suppose I should not be surprised, but you really should have a look at CASR 23, (indeed CASA 21-35) and if you had an in-depth understanding of certification, and the impact of any FAA actions on Australian aircraft originally certified in US by FAA, you might understand. In the case of certain Cessna aircraft, and their ongoing airworthiness, the FAA decision referred to, directly affects Australian aircraft.
As for aircraft on going maintenance it dose not matter if its a cessna or a pc12. The certification for the aircraft will remain with the licence holder under the state of which that holder holds the certification. Ie brazil Usa canada Uk France etc etc. The faa is just one of the regions of state. Not all aircraft are certified to far regulations. Its an irrelevant comment you have made.
Prefect example of this is the metro and its on going sale of its certification from the usa to eroupe.
The main reasons for sids was to remove thhe aircraft so that cessna did not have to continue the support off them. They could pull the certification but that cost so much in legal pay out it was impossible to do. Similarly beech had the same with the starship. They tried to buy them up but didnt succeed with all the purchases and as such had to continue with it certification.
I note that you havent answer any questions i have ask of yourself. Every thing i have stated is in the regulations. You dont understand the regelations in regrads to maintenance its very clear.
So when is a ad applicable.
So where do you find the regs on on board fire extinguishers. What documents do you need to the standard. Quick get your phone.
So as i was told " bus driver " is closer to the truth than i relised. An us such why you are so hostile towards lames . Please remove yourself from the seat or push back ring any bells.
Toot toot
Its easy to be brave when you do not have to sign for it and be a key board warrior. So tell us the answer to the questions i have raised with you which are relevant to this forum not the tripe you put on me.
LeadSled: Man, you’re being sucked into Full Retard.
Never go Full Retard.
Never go Full Retard.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncage the switch, by-pass the interlock circuit and engage in a pointless argument, and you’re Full Retard!
Please remove yourself from the seat or (on??) push back ring any bells.
No, because it never happened. Somebody is telling you fairy stories. Again, the challenge is for you to prove otherwise.
Lead Balloon, Gerry III,
I know you are right, but sometimes I can't help myself. Too much time on my hands this week???
Interestingly, and sadly, many of his misconceptions and fundamental lack of basic knowledge are shared with some other LAMEs I know, not to mention AWI.
Indeed, some of the fundamental misconceptions were taught at a particular TAFE, (I can only speak for one) also in CAA/CASA initial AWI training.
When it comes to smaller aircraft, we would be so much better off with the US system and philosophical approach to continuing airworthiness.
Less bulldust, less expense, lots of common sense and better aircraft.
Tootle Pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conned Rod,
No, because it never happened. Somebody is telling you fairy stories. Again, the challenge is for you to prove otherwise.
Lead Balloon, Gerry III,
I know you are right, but sometimes I can't help myself. Too much time on my hands this week???
Interestingly, and sadly, many of his misconceptions and fundamental lack of basic knowledge are shared with some other LAMEs I know, not to mention AWI.
Indeed, some of the fundamental misconceptions were taught at a particular TAFE, (I can only speak for one) also in CAA/CASA initial AWI training.
When it comes to smaller aircraft, we would be so much better off with the US system and philosophical approach to continuing airworthiness.
Less bulldust, less expense, lots of common sense and better aircraft.
Tootle Pip!!
No, because it never happened. Somebody is telling you fairy stories. Again, the challenge is for you to prove otherwise.
Lead Balloon, Gerry III,
I know you are right, but sometimes I can't help myself. Too much time on my hands this week???
Interestingly, and sadly, many of his misconceptions and fundamental lack of basic knowledge are shared with some other LAMEs I know, not to mention AWI.
Indeed, some of the fundamental misconceptions were taught at a particular TAFE, (I can only speak for one) also in CAA/CASA initial AWI training.
When it comes to smaller aircraft, we would be so much better off with the US system and philosophical approach to continuing airworthiness.
Less bulldust, less expense, lots of common sense and better aircraft.
Tootle Pip!!
As for me not understanding the regulations i far more advanced than your self. Having to deal with what we are placed with daily unlike your self thats just a key board warrior.
Please answer the relevant questions i gave you. Not board one line answer and the if yes under what provisions and ATHOURTITY that you were able to answer if it is a yes.
This is important.
I note you have not even answered the simple question on onboard fire extinguisher.
You dont like lame because you have no control over us. We dont answer too you. This is a lack of power you can not come to trems with. You have the hide to say i say bad things about you yet you on most times you are the instigator of this. Yet when i give it back you cant take it.
Your lack of knowledge on this subject can easy be seen by anyone that deals on this subject on a daily basis. You cant get on a grips on what is approved data and what is not. You have not even answered the simple questions on that subject i gave you. This show you dont know the answer to them. So if you cant even know them how can you expect to know the complexity of the merger between all the applicable complexities between all data.
Gerry
Once again your simple non productive entry is noted. And once again your incorrect. As you see you may not be in a position to not use me. But im never in that position.
Toot toot
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So serving dose not exist in the leadies world hey.
AWB 12-1 Issue 2 - Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
AWB 12-1 Issue 2, 17 January 2002
Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
Effectivity
General information
Purpose
The purpose of this AWB is to provide information on the servicing tasks that may be carried out by, but not limited to, the pilot in command.
Background
Feedback to CASA shows some confusion may exist on the difference between servicing and maintenance. CAR 2 of the 1988 Regulations advises in part, that:
'Maintenance means…the doing of any work (including a modification or repair) on the aircraft that may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to person or property…'
'Servicing…means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids…but does not include any work that is maintenance.'
Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.
Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity.
Advice
If the aircraft is used for commercial operations, the operator is to ensure that flight crew are adequately trained to carry out servicing tasks. For private operations, if you do not know how to do these tasks, you should ask an LAME to show you.
When replenishing fluids, you must use only those approved for the particular application.
Servicing Tasks
Refuelling and de-fuelling;Fuel system water drain checks;Replenishment of hydraulic fluid;Replenishment of engine oil;Toilet cleaning;Replenishment of engine coolant;Replenishment of water;Sanitize potable water;Adjustment of tyre pressures;Replenishment of de-icing fluid;Periodic lubrication of components, other than lubrication that is required for the accomplishment of scheduled maintenance, which does not require disassembly of the component, other than removal of non-structural items such as cover plates, cowlings and fairings eg: lubrication of door hinges;Aircraft internal and external cleaning, including windscreen cleaning;Disinfecting of the aircraft;Removal of ice and snow;Application of preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good maintenance practices;Checking aircraft battery electrolyte levels and topping up with distilled water but excluding wet cell nickel-cadmium batteries;Servicing tasks required by the aircraft flight manual or maintenance manual;Towing, parking and mooring including tasks to facilitate these functions eg: quick disconnect and re-connection of torque links; andReplacement or repair of signs and markings.
Note: The servicing of liquid and gaseous oxygen systems is to be carried out only by an appropriately rated LAME.
Last updated: 17 February 2016
AWB 12-1 Issue 2 - Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
AWB 12-1 Issue 2, 17 January 2002
Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks
Effectivity
General information
Purpose
The purpose of this AWB is to provide information on the servicing tasks that may be carried out by, but not limited to, the pilot in command.
Background
Feedback to CASA shows some confusion may exist on the difference between servicing and maintenance. CAR 2 of the 1988 Regulations advises in part, that:
'Maintenance means…the doing of any work (including a modification or repair) on the aircraft that may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to person or property…'
'Servicing…means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids…but does not include any work that is maintenance.'
Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.
Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity.
Advice
If the aircraft is used for commercial operations, the operator is to ensure that flight crew are adequately trained to carry out servicing tasks. For private operations, if you do not know how to do these tasks, you should ask an LAME to show you.
When replenishing fluids, you must use only those approved for the particular application.
Servicing Tasks
Refuelling and de-fuelling;Fuel system water drain checks;Replenishment of hydraulic fluid;Replenishment of engine oil;Toilet cleaning;Replenishment of engine coolant;Replenishment of water;Sanitize potable water;Adjustment of tyre pressures;Replenishment of de-icing fluid;Periodic lubrication of components, other than lubrication that is required for the accomplishment of scheduled maintenance, which does not require disassembly of the component, other than removal of non-structural items such as cover plates, cowlings and fairings eg: lubrication of door hinges;Aircraft internal and external cleaning, including windscreen cleaning;Disinfecting of the aircraft;Removal of ice and snow;Application of preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good maintenance practices;Checking aircraft battery electrolyte levels and topping up with distilled water but excluding wet cell nickel-cadmium batteries;Servicing tasks required by the aircraft flight manual or maintenance manual;Towing, parking and mooring including tasks to facilitate these functions eg: quick disconnect and re-connection of torque links; andReplacement or repair of signs and markings.
Note: The servicing of liquid and gaseous oxygen systems is to be carried out only by an appropriately rated LAME.
Last updated: 17 February 2016
CAR 2 of the 1988 Regulations advises in part...
The usual confusion built on confusion by someone who confuses his or her opinion for the law.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a lame im fully aware of my reposabilities and the flow of approved data i MUST FOLLOW. Clearly this is something you dont and cant follow.
A awb is consided law in the absence of a regulation in the court and casa eyes. Its that simple. It is an approved document from the regulator. To go against the documents is at your own perile if there is no other documents.
You stated that there is know such thing as serving i not shure how many times in this forum. Take note of the last update of this awb. 2016.
Answer the simple question i gave you.
Toot tootie toot
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the position has now been placed beyond all doubt. First, the Civil Aviation
Legislation Amendment (Airworthiness and Other Matters-2015 Measures No. 1)
Regulation 2015 amended Schedule 5 of CAR 1988 to omit the previous mention of
maintenance within the limits specified in CAO 108.34 and direct the required
maintenance to be carried out in accordance with the approved maintenance data for the
system.
:- Now if approved data needs to be used and CAsA don't supply "data" in schedule 5 then you need data from another source the fist is the airframe manufacturer (unless modified by a EO) and if they don't supply it then the component manufacturer.
You must follow all this data including inspection limits if applicable or you are not carrying out IAW that approved data.
Legislation Amendment (Airworthiness and Other Matters-2015 Measures No. 1)
Regulation 2015 amended Schedule 5 of CAR 1988 to omit the previous mention of
maintenance within the limits specified in CAO 108.34 and direct the required
maintenance to be carried out in accordance with the approved maintenance data for the
system.
:- Now if approved data needs to be used and CAsA don't supply "data" in schedule 5 then you need data from another source the fist is the airframe manufacturer (unless modified by a EO) and if they don't supply it then the component manufacturer.
You must follow all this data including inspection limits if applicable or you are not carrying out IAW that approved data.
It seems confusion between "periodic inspection" and "general maintenance inspections" exist - the REGs are clear general maintenance inspections are at intervals listed by the manufacturer.
(1)A person carrying out maintenance on an Australian aircraft must ensure that the maintenance is carried out in accordance with the applicable provisions of the aircraft’s approved maintenance data.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: Regulation 2A sets out what is approved maintenance data for an aircraft.
2.3 A periodic inspection must be carried out on a private aircraft
within the period of 1 year from:
(a) the day on which the aircraft’s current certificate of
airworthiness was issued; or
(b) the day on which the most recent general maintenance
inspection on the aircraft was completed;
whichever is the later.
2.4 Subject to paragraph 2.5, a periodic inspection must be carried
out on a class B aircraft that is not a private aircraft within
whichever of the following periods expires first:
(a) one year from:
(i) the day on which the aircraft’s current certificate of
airworthiness was issued; or
(ii) the day on which the most recent general
maintenance inspection on the aircraft was
completed;
whichever is the later;
(b) the aircraft has been in service for 100 hours since:
(i) the aircraft’s current certificate of airworthiness was
issued; or
(ii) the most recent general maintenance inspection on
the aircraft was completed;
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; and
(b) is not required to be carried out before the aircraft’s first
flight on each day on which the aircraft is flown.
private aircraft means an aircraft:
(a) that is a class B aircraft; and
(b) that has a maximum take off weight of 5700 kg or less;
and
(c) that is only used in private operations by:
(i) the owner of the aircraft; or
(ii) a person to whom the owner has provided the
aircraft without receiving any remuneration from the
person.
2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table
requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a
thorough check made to determine whether the thing will
continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.
4.2 The time-in-service between Periodic Inspections is to be 100 hours aeroplane time-in-service or 12 months, whichever is the earlier, and for aeroplanes below 5700 kg engaged in private operations this inspection may be performed annually irrespective of hours flown. The completion of this inspection, along with any defect rectifications performed as a result of this inspection, is to be certified for in the aeroplane’s log book.
CAAP 42B-1(1.1): below
6. Periodic Inspection Schedule 6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness 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.
6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.
(1)A person carrying out maintenance on an Australian aircraft must ensure that the maintenance is carried out in accordance with the applicable provisions of the aircraft’s approved maintenance data.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: Regulation 2A sets out what is approved maintenance data for an aircraft.
2.3 A periodic inspection must be carried out on a private aircraft
within the period of 1 year from:
(a) the day on which the aircraft’s current certificate of
airworthiness was issued; or
(b) the day on which the most recent general maintenance
inspection on the aircraft was completed;
whichever is the later.
2.4 Subject to paragraph 2.5, a periodic inspection must be carried
out on a class B aircraft that is not a private aircraft within
whichever of the following periods expires first:
(a) one year from:
(i) the day on which the aircraft’s current certificate of
airworthiness was issued; or
(ii) the day on which the most recent general
maintenance inspection on the aircraft was
completed;
whichever is the later;
(b) the aircraft has been in service for 100 hours since:
(i) the aircraft’s current certificate of airworthiness was
issued; or
(ii) the most recent general maintenance inspection on
the aircraft was completed;
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; and
(b) is not required to be carried out before the aircraft’s first
flight on each day on which the aircraft is flown.
private aircraft means an aircraft:
(a) that is a class B aircraft; and
(b) that has a maximum take off weight of 5700 kg or less;
and
(c) that is only used in private operations by:
(i) the owner of the aircraft; or
(ii) a person to whom the owner has provided the
aircraft without receiving any remuneration from the
person.
2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table
requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a
thorough check made to determine whether the thing will
continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.
4.2 The time-in-service between Periodic Inspections is to be 100 hours aeroplane time-in-service or 12 months, whichever is the earlier, and for aeroplanes below 5700 kg engaged in private operations this inspection may be performed annually irrespective of hours flown. The completion of this inspection, along with any defect rectifications performed as a result of this inspection, is to be certified for in the aeroplane’s log book.
CAAP 42B-1(1.1): below
6. Periodic Inspection Schedule 6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness 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.
6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bend alot
What bus driver dose not and cant clearly understand because even with all his chest beating on how good he is he is not a lame.
Everying a lame dose on a aircraft is done IAW. this is very important. If ypu have no data and a AWB covers it you may use DONE IAW AWB. This is now legal.
When releasing an engine on condition even though the Manufacturer says no you can cover your self some what under the awb. That is you inspect the engine iaw the awb and release it iaw the awb.
Howerver if it goes pear shaped whislt ypu are covered on a legal side of thing from casa prosecution you are wide open under civil law. Because you have gone against the Manufacturer recommendations.
There are other awb which ask for specfic things and once again if there is an accident and they not done watch out.
This is what the higher educated can get there head around it seams.
So ypu are forced as a lame to use all approved documents.
Amd remember that am accident may be investigated and they dont just look at what the cause was. They start at the frount and continue rearwards till they get to the tail. You be charged on everything they find even if it had no process in the original accident
Tootie toot toot
What bus driver dose not and cant clearly understand because even with all his chest beating on how good he is he is not a lame.
Everying a lame dose on a aircraft is done IAW. this is very important. If ypu have no data and a AWB covers it you may use DONE IAW AWB. This is now legal.
When releasing an engine on condition even though the Manufacturer says no you can cover your self some what under the awb. That is you inspect the engine iaw the awb and release it iaw the awb.
Howerver if it goes pear shaped whislt ypu are covered on a legal side of thing from casa prosecution you are wide open under civil law. Because you have gone against the Manufacturer recommendations.
There are other awb which ask for specfic things and once again if there is an accident and they not done watch out.
This is what the higher educated can get there head around it seams.
So ypu are forced as a lame to use all approved documents.
Amd remember that am accident may be investigated and they dont just look at what the cause was. They start at the frount and continue rearwards till they get to the tail. You be charged on everything they find even if it had no process in the original accident
Tootie toot toot
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're discussing this here and I'm wanting to know more. Where would I look to find this regulation?
Haydn