Maintenance Schedule
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would actually be useful is if ADENG4 required the monitoring of the trend, not just the recording of data.
Haydn
That is then perfectly true in USA that calibration of the gauge is not required in USA - but as per the AWB and the REG,s it does need calibration.
If you had a letter the gauge is required to be calibrated only once or every 500 years then you use that data - but in the absence of that you need to use the fall back of the CAsA AWB or higher.
I have the same rig and the gauge was required to be calibrated due the 35 psi difference in spark compared to a new plug.
* none of that Champion Spark Plug Tester (125 psi) stuff is relevant to this tester - it is a different test to confirm spark plug serviceability.
* topics like this being other reasons I closed my doors - I agree with you it is BS but by the REGS and associated publications - the gauge needs to be calibrated.
If you had a letter the gauge is required to be calibrated only once or every 500 years then you use that data - but in the absence of that you need to use the fall back of the CAsA AWB or higher.
I have the same rig and the gauge was required to be calibrated due the 35 psi difference in spark compared to a new plug.
* none of that Champion Spark Plug Tester (125 psi) stuff is relevant to this tester - it is a different test to confirm spark plug serviceability.
* topics like this being other reasons I closed my doors - I agree with you it is BS but by the REGS and associated publications - the gauge needs to be calibrated.
I know that there was a state law in regrads to compressor out pressure.i have never worked in a shop thats had more than 90psi. If you have a problem with a plug its going to show up much earlier than 125psi. I know our air will not go that high. Its in the dangous range that high.
I guess we will all have to purchase new plugs each time we do a service or not use thoose plugs.
Tootie toot tootles
I guess we will all have to purchase new plugs each time we do a service or not use thoose plugs.
Tootie toot tootles
Mate it is the Champion Tester Calibration only at 125 psi once a year (use the nitrogen rig that is calibrated for that test).
(1)This regulation applies where, apart from this regulation, a person would be required, by this Part, to comply with two requirements that are inconsistent.
(2)The person is only required to comply with whichever of the requirements has the higher priority.
(3)For the purposes of this regulation, two requirements are inconsistent if:
(a) it is not possible to comply with both of the requirements; or
(b) they require the same, or substantially the same, action to be taken at different times or in a different way.
(4)The order of priority of requirements is as follows (starting with those of highest priority):
(a) requirements in these Regulations (except those requirements mentioned in the remaining provisions of this subregulation);
(b) requirements in instruments made under these Regulations;
(c) requirements in documents (including designs) approved by CASA or authorised persons under these Regulations;
(d) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft;
(e) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft components;
(f) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft manufacturers;
(g) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft component manufacturers;
(h) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft material manufacturers;
(j) requirements in documents that are approved maintenance data because of paragraph 2A(2)(e).
(5)If there is in existence more than one requirement of a kind mentioned in one of the paragraphs of subregulation (4), then the requirement that is later in time has higher priority.
(2)The person is only required to comply with whichever of the requirements has the higher priority.
(3)For the purposes of this regulation, two requirements are inconsistent if:
(a) it is not possible to comply with both of the requirements; or
(b) they require the same, or substantially the same, action to be taken at different times or in a different way.
(4)The order of priority of requirements is as follows (starting with those of highest priority):
(a) requirements in these Regulations (except those requirements mentioned in the remaining provisions of this subregulation);
(b) requirements in instruments made under these Regulations;
(c) requirements in documents (including designs) approved by CASA or authorised persons under these Regulations;
(d) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft;
(e) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft components;
(f) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft manufacturers;
(g) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft component manufacturers;
(h) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft material manufacturers;
(j) requirements in documents that are approved maintenance data because of paragraph 2A(2)(e).
(5)If there is in existence more than one requirement of a kind mentioned in one of the paragraphs of subregulation (4), then the requirement that is later in time has higher priority.
Last edited by Bend alot; 26th Nov 2017 at 11:03.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(1)This regulation applies where, apart from this regulation, a person would be required, by this Part, to comply with two requirements that are inconsistent.(2)The person is only required to comply with whichever of the requirements has the higher priority.
(3)For the purposes of this regulation, two requirements are inconsistent if:
(a) it is not possible to comply with both of the requirements; or
(b) they require the same, or substantially the same, action to be taken at different times or in a different way.
(4)The order of priority of requirements is as follows (starting with those of highest priority):
(a) requirements in these Regulations (except those requirements mentioned in the remaining provisions of this subregulation);
(b) requirements in instruments made under these Regulations;
(c) requirements in documents (including designs) approved by CASA or authorised persons under these Regulations;
(d) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft;
(e) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft components;
(f) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft manufacturers;
(g) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft component manufacturers;
(h) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft material manufacturers;
(j) requirements in documents that are approved maintenance data because of paragraph 2A(2)(e).
(5)If there is in existence more than one requirement of a kind mentioned in one of the paragraphs of subregulation (4), then the requirement that is later in time has higher priority.
(3)For the purposes of this regulation, two requirements are inconsistent if:
(a) it is not possible to comply with both of the requirements; or
(b) they require the same, or substantially the same, action to be taken at different times or in a different way.
(4)The order of priority of requirements is as follows (starting with those of highest priority):
(a) requirements in these Regulations (except those requirements mentioned in the remaining provisions of this subregulation);
(b) requirements in instruments made under these Regulations;
(c) requirements in documents (including designs) approved by CASA or authorised persons under these Regulations;
(d) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft;
(e) requirements in instructions issued by designers of modifications of aircraft components;
(f) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft manufacturers;
(g) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft component manufacturers;
(h) requirements in instructions issued by aircraft material manufacturers;
(j) requirements in documents that are approved maintenance data because of paragraph 2A(2)(e).
(5)If there is in existence more than one requirement of a kind mentioned in one of the paragraphs of subregulation (4), then the requirement that is later in time has higher priority.
Seen on a sign at RSTT at Wagga in 1982 BEDS WILL BE MADE UP AS LAID DOWN IN STANDING ORDERS.
But is there still doubt I requested a suspension of my AMO? Hayd.
CAsA:-
During the recent Site Inspection on the 8th June 201x at your maintenance location at x Airport we discussed your intention regarding the subject.
CASA understands that you intend to close your business at the current maintenance location at the end of June 201x. You also stated that you do not intend to relocate to another facility at this time.
You are at this time the holder of an authorisation CASA.COA.0366 (CAR 30 Certificate). As such there are a number of options and obligations applicable to you under the CASRs as follows;
1. CASR 11.072 (1998) Conditions of authorisations – Change of business status, and
2. CASR 11.130 (1998) Suspension or Cancellation of authorisation, and
3. CASR 21.132 (1998) Effect of suspension.
Can you please advise CASA in writing by close of business Friday 17th June 201x of your intentions in regard to your current CAR 30 Certificate?
Me:-
As discussed I wish my COA # 1-xxxx located at x airfield to be suspended at my request at close of business on 24 June 201x until further notice.
This suspension is I.A.W CASR 11.130 (2) (a).
I also wish to inform that current premises lease expires 30 June 201x and if option to cease suspension I.A.W 11.130 (3)(a) it shall be a different location.
During the suspension period can you please use the following contact details.
CAsA:-
Your email request has been forwarded to CASA Regservices.
Regservices may contact you directly to advise of action taken regarding the status of your Certificate of Approval.
Good luck with your lifestyle changes.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information on this matter.
Best regards,
CAsA:-
During the recent Site Inspection on the 8th June 201x at your maintenance location at x Airport we discussed your intention regarding the subject.
CASA understands that you intend to close your business at the current maintenance location at the end of June 201x. You also stated that you do not intend to relocate to another facility at this time.
You are at this time the holder of an authorisation CASA.COA.0366 (CAR 30 Certificate). As such there are a number of options and obligations applicable to you under the CASRs as follows;
1. CASR 11.072 (1998) Conditions of authorisations – Change of business status, and
2. CASR 11.130 (1998) Suspension or Cancellation of authorisation, and
3. CASR 21.132 (1998) Effect of suspension.
Can you please advise CASA in writing by close of business Friday 17th June 201x of your intentions in regard to your current CAR 30 Certificate?
Me:-
As discussed I wish my COA # 1-xxxx located at x airfield to be suspended at my request at close of business on 24 June 201x until further notice.
This suspension is I.A.W CASR 11.130 (2) (a).
I also wish to inform that current premises lease expires 30 June 201x and if option to cease suspension I.A.W 11.130 (3)(a) it shall be a different location.
During the suspension period can you please use the following contact details.
CAsA:-
Your email request has been forwarded to CASA Regservices.
Regservices may contact you directly to advise of action taken regarding the status of your Certificate of Approval.
Good luck with your lifestyle changes.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information on this matter.
Best regards,
Folks,
Taken as a whole, this thread is a pretty good metaphor for everything that is wrong with aviation in Australia, and why it is going backwards.
NONE OF THIS "DEBATE" (if it deserves that term) WOULD EVER HAPPEN IN USA.
The FAA "rules" for continuing airworthiness are simplicity personified, compared to Australia.
The FAA "rules" for continuing airworthiness are outcome driven, unlike Australia's process and procedures driven nightmare.
THIS IS AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF STEADILY IMPROVING AIR SAFETY OUTCOMES IN US OVER 30+ YEARS, THIS LAST REPORTED YEAR BEING THE BEST YET -- THEY MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT ----- AND US GA IS EXPANDING AGAIN --AFTER THE 2008 GFC.
By comparison, there has only been minor change to Australia's air safety outcomes in the same period, what improvements there have been are largely due to the shrinking of AU GA, not fundamental improvement.
These remarks do not apply to aircraft subject to Part 145, generally but not only HCRPT and similar.
In US, the "what you have to do" is in Part 91 or Part 135,(no Aerial Work in US) the "how to do it" is in Part 43. Take the opportunity to look up the FAA web site, or the US Federal Register.
Open Part 43. Firstly count the number of page --- you can read the whole "rule" in a few minutes ---- and understand it in that time, one reading, because it is simple short, clearly written in plain English. There are ONLY 17 sub paragraphs in the whole rule, plus appendices.
Unlike Australia, it is NOT complex, convoluted, contradictory and NOT written in a style that even lawyers argue about meaning and interpretation. Understand any Australian rule in one reading??
All the detail of "how to do it" (comply with the rule) is in Advisory Circulars, again all in plain English. The heart of this part of the operations is AC43.13A & B.
Take the trouble to have a look. Many CAR 30 workshops in Australia have incorporated AC43.13A&B in their "CASA APPROVED DATA".
No such need in US, because for aircraft not subject to Part 145, there is no equivalent of CAR 30, and all the CASA bulldust, audits, NCNs etc. that goes with CAR 30 Approvals. An A&P does the work, an IA checks it out.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, all work is to ACCEPTABLE data, NOT APPROVED, with whoever is doing the work TRUSTED to choose appropriate data, not directed by FAA every step of the way. This is true across the board, including Part 145 Maintenance Organisations.
Of course, the rest of the FAA AC library, which is immense, will cover just about anything you reasonably know. ALL acceptable data.
With the FAA system, you have far greater latitude to do repairs without a FAA equivalent of a CASR Part 21M approval, and FAA still have what we used to call CAR 35 Engineers ---- but the damage or whatever must be pretty substantial to need one.
The NZ and Canadian systems substantially work the same was as US, although the Canadian system looks a bit different on the surface. The NZ system ( FAA simplified and consolidated) has been adopted widely in smaller countries.
Australian aid paid for PNG to adopt the NZ rules, because the Australian based rules were considered to no longer be workable or ICAO compliant.
Tootle pip!!
PS: FAA Part 145 and EASA Part 145 are largely harmonised, and, surprise, surprise, nothing like CASR Part145.
Taken as a whole, this thread is a pretty good metaphor for everything that is wrong with aviation in Australia, and why it is going backwards.
NONE OF THIS "DEBATE" (if it deserves that term) WOULD EVER HAPPEN IN USA.
The FAA "rules" for continuing airworthiness are simplicity personified, compared to Australia.
The FAA "rules" for continuing airworthiness are outcome driven, unlike Australia's process and procedures driven nightmare.
THIS IS AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF STEADILY IMPROVING AIR SAFETY OUTCOMES IN US OVER 30+ YEARS, THIS LAST REPORTED YEAR BEING THE BEST YET -- THEY MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT ----- AND US GA IS EXPANDING AGAIN --AFTER THE 2008 GFC.
By comparison, there has only been minor change to Australia's air safety outcomes in the same period, what improvements there have been are largely due to the shrinking of AU GA, not fundamental improvement.
These remarks do not apply to aircraft subject to Part 145, generally but not only HCRPT and similar.
In US, the "what you have to do" is in Part 91 or Part 135,(no Aerial Work in US) the "how to do it" is in Part 43. Take the opportunity to look up the FAA web site, or the US Federal Register.
Open Part 43. Firstly count the number of page --- you can read the whole "rule" in a few minutes ---- and understand it in that time, one reading, because it is simple short, clearly written in plain English. There are ONLY 17 sub paragraphs in the whole rule, plus appendices.
Unlike Australia, it is NOT complex, convoluted, contradictory and NOT written in a style that even lawyers argue about meaning and interpretation. Understand any Australian rule in one reading??
All the detail of "how to do it" (comply with the rule) is in Advisory Circulars, again all in plain English. The heart of this part of the operations is AC43.13A & B.
Take the trouble to have a look. Many CAR 30 workshops in Australia have incorporated AC43.13A&B in their "CASA APPROVED DATA".
No such need in US, because for aircraft not subject to Part 145, there is no equivalent of CAR 30, and all the CASA bulldust, audits, NCNs etc. that goes with CAR 30 Approvals. An A&P does the work, an IA checks it out.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, all work is to ACCEPTABLE data, NOT APPROVED, with whoever is doing the work TRUSTED to choose appropriate data, not directed by FAA every step of the way. This is true across the board, including Part 145 Maintenance Organisations.
Of course, the rest of the FAA AC library, which is immense, will cover just about anything you reasonably know. ALL acceptable data.
With the FAA system, you have far greater latitude to do repairs without a FAA equivalent of a CASR Part 21M approval, and FAA still have what we used to call CAR 35 Engineers ---- but the damage or whatever must be pretty substantial to need one.
The NZ and Canadian systems substantially work the same was as US, although the Canadian system looks a bit different on the surface. The NZ system ( FAA simplified and consolidated) has been adopted widely in smaller countries.
Australian aid paid for PNG to adopt the NZ rules, because the Australian based rules were considered to no longer be workable or ICAO compliant.
Tootle pip!!
PS: FAA Part 145 and EASA Part 145 are largely harmonised, and, surprise, surprise, nothing like CASR Part145.
After reading Leadsleds post, I have some genuine questions as it seems the current Aus regs are a bit of a cluster....
What is stopping someone like 'Bend alot' becoming certified under the FAA system?
and if he did it;
What is stopping someone like myself registering my aeroplane under 'N'? (lets assume I have an FAA pilots licence)
Could it be done?
Or if you replace FAA with NZ CAA and register ZK....could that be done? Would CASA have any jurisdiction over your operations?
What if this option was available to GA en mass? What if we all simply registered 'N' or 'ZK' would this actually make it easier and cheaper? (ie take positive steps to making CASA largely redundant in OZ)
If the answer to many of these questions in positive, I would argue that may be a good start to rebuilding GA in OZ.....
AOPA are you listening? Is this why you are strengthening ties with US AOPA?
What is stopping someone like 'Bend alot' becoming certified under the FAA system?
and if he did it;
What is stopping someone like myself registering my aeroplane under 'N'? (lets assume I have an FAA pilots licence)
Could it be done?
Or if you replace FAA with NZ CAA and register ZK....could that be done? Would CASA have any jurisdiction over your operations?
What if this option was available to GA en mass? What if we all simply registered 'N' or 'ZK' would this actually make it easier and cheaper? (ie take positive steps to making CASA largely redundant in OZ)
If the answer to many of these questions in positive, I would argue that may be a good start to rebuilding GA in OZ.....
AOPA are you listening? Is this why you are strengthening ties with US AOPA?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Champion Tester Calibration only at 125 psi once a year (use the nitrogen rig that is calibrated for that test)
Pure nitrogen is used BECAUSE it has different properties to air, due to the absence of other gases. That means that if you want to substitute nitrogen, you would need some sort of data to show that the different gas doesn't affect the calibration.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two types of FAA Mechanic licence, on shore and off shore.
You will need to convince the FAA of the reason for the offshore licence.
McDermott Aviation out of Cooroy QLD, are running their Bell214s on the N register, they presented a very good case to CASA to allow them to do this.
If you are flying a N registered aircraft in Australia you will need a FAA pilots licence or an authority from CASA to allow you to be PIC.
As far as the maintenance for a N registered aircraft, as well as a FAA mechanic's certificate, you are going to need a FAA approved workshop to allow release to service after scheduled maintenance. The same applies should you want to go to the NZ regulations.
The use of nitrogen instead of air, interesting thoughts from some, so explain this: The pressure for aircraft tyres(tires for the US brethren) is the same whether it is Nitrogen, dehydrated air(that stuff in the bottles) or from the air compressor. Surely it would be different values if this was important.
The issue of the sparkplug tester is just so much foofle dust as far as I can work out. Mark the gauge as "For Reference Only" and go about your business.
The Australian Regulations for maintenance are not that difficult to interpret, if some one with grade 9 education can successfully understand the INTENT of the aforementioned rules, I feel you highly educated contributors to this thread should have no problems.
A final thought: some here seem to see the requirements for maintenance pursuant to AD/ENG/4 is to **** them around, when infact it is to ensure the engine is safe for release to service. If you are of a mind to, just pencil whip the whole servicing and go on your way, as ConnedRod has intimated, the maintainers couldn't give a **** what you do. Go kill yourself and your family.
You will need to convince the FAA of the reason for the offshore licence.
McDermott Aviation out of Cooroy QLD, are running their Bell214s on the N register, they presented a very good case to CASA to allow them to do this.
If you are flying a N registered aircraft in Australia you will need a FAA pilots licence or an authority from CASA to allow you to be PIC.
As far as the maintenance for a N registered aircraft, as well as a FAA mechanic's certificate, you are going to need a FAA approved workshop to allow release to service after scheduled maintenance. The same applies should you want to go to the NZ regulations.
The use of nitrogen instead of air, interesting thoughts from some, so explain this: The pressure for aircraft tyres(tires for the US brethren) is the same whether it is Nitrogen, dehydrated air(that stuff in the bottles) or from the air compressor. Surely it would be different values if this was important.
The issue of the sparkplug tester is just so much foofle dust as far as I can work out. Mark the gauge as "For Reference Only" and go about your business.
The Australian Regulations for maintenance are not that difficult to interpret, if some one with grade 9 education can successfully understand the INTENT of the aforementioned rules, I feel you highly educated contributors to this thread should have no problems.
A final thought: some here seem to see the requirements for maintenance pursuant to AD/ENG/4 is to **** them around, when infact it is to ensure the engine is safe for release to service. If you are of a mind to, just pencil whip the whole servicing and go on your way, as ConnedRod has intimated, the maintainers couldn't give a **** what you do. Go kill yourself and your family.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 26th Nov 2017 at 23:07. Reason: More to say
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue has apparently been resolved, and was done by standardising all regions' offices to the same interpretation - in fact when you ring them now they usually have to get back to you after they get confirmation from their legal department. What this has achieved is that the most restrictive interpretation of the particular reg is the one that has become standard.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken as a whole, this thread is a pretty good metaphor for everything that is wrong with aviation in Australia, and why it is going backwards.
The faa regs are not necessarily the answer to the problem we are now .
Remember that aoap pushed for these regs and once again pilots that think they know it all but actually know sfa.
It can be seen clearly by leadies posts how little he knows. He simple is full of puff and wind. He has been caught out with his lack of knowledge just in this thread.
He for what every reason will not answer simple questions that that i have given him to show his expert knowledge of the regulations .
And whist the regulations are one thing its the combination of the regs to one another that is important.
Clearly he is lacking in this area as well.
Just because you pilot a large jet dose not give you the information that is required to be able to give acutely informative information on this topic.
So once again just answer the question that i gave you please.
Even if we go to new regs the cost is not going to be much different. Basically they all the same. Just wraped slightly different.
Lame licenceing will benefit if we disgrad the mess we are now in and go back to what we had that worked and provided good quality engineering.
This also be of some interest to thoose that can read and not make thinks up.
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-02...rcraft-washing
Toot toot tootie pie
Oh gerry i feel for you. NOT.
The faa regs are not necessarily the answer to the problem we are now .
Remember that aoap pushed for these regs and once again pilots that think they know it all but actually know sfa.
It can be seen clearly by leadies posts how little he knows. He simple is full of puff and wind. He has been caught out with his lack of knowledge just in this thread.
He for what every reason will not answer simple questions that that i have given him to show his expert knowledge of the regulations .
And whist the regulations are one thing its the combination of the regs to one another that is important.
Clearly he is lacking in this area as well.
Just because you pilot a large jet dose not give you the information that is required to be able to give acutely informative information on this topic.
So once again just answer the question that i gave you please.
Even if we go to new regs the cost is not going to be much different. Basically they all the same. Just wraped slightly different.
Lame licenceing will benefit if we disgrad the mess we are now in and go back to what we had that worked and provided good quality engineering.
This also be of some interest to thoose that can read and not make thinks up.
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-02...rcraft-washing
Toot toot tootie pie
Oh gerry i feel for you. NOT.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) identifies the training competencies and qualifications necessary for CASA to consider the making of an instrument under paragraph 42ZC(6) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) for the purpose of authorising a pilot or an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) that is not endorsed on the type, (an engineer) to perform the maintenance tasks referred to in Paragraph 3.
Oh leadie as you have asked this is what some of the training i have to approve is done under.
Please answer the questions i gave you.
TOOT TOOT my tootie
Oh leadie as you have asked this is what some of the training i have to approve is done under.
Please answer the questions i gave you.
TOOT TOOT my tootie