Maintenance Schedule
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also if an accident or incident occurs and an awb si sb msb has not been carried out and is the cause of the accident you can loose your claim
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Connedrod;9972479]Yes i have. Luckly not very othen. You need to read the regs. All required maintenance must me listed if it falls due in the required life of the issued m/r.
Also if an accident or incident occurs and an awb si sb msb has not been carried out and is the cause of the accident you can loose your claim
I think you should be reviewing your log book statements as you have shown here they not compliant with the regs as you previously have pointed out. And if i can find you on the net any one can wink wink
Also if an accident or incident occurs and an awb si sb msb has not been carried out and is the cause of the accident you can loose your claim
I think you should be reviewing your log book statements as you have shown here they not compliant with the regs as you previously have pointed out. And if i can find you on the net any one can wink wink
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly am not Connedrod. (The NT C210 thread should make that clear)
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
To cover my ar*e on the 12 month ones, I would issue the MR a day sort - ie expire 28/11/18.
This stopped me listing every 12 month maintenance item on the MR's.
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
To cover my ar*e on the 12 month ones, I would issue the MR a day sort - ie expire 28/11/18.
This stopped me listing every 12 month maintenance item on the MR's.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, I know off topic (If there is even one left!) But could you expand what you mean for me when you state,
"In the aviation business, "Cheap Asian labor" is a myth, "high productivity" is not"
"In the aviation business, "Cheap Asian labor" is a myth, "high productivity" is not"
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Bend alot;9972651]I certainly am not Connedrod. (The NT C210 thread should make that clear)
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
[QUOTE=Bend alot;9972651]I certainly am not Connedrod. (The NT C210 thread should make that clear)
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
Only time ive put 12 month items is when i had too release the aircraft that had a 13month M/R issue period.
But i had a muti engine turbine machine that we released for 3 months 100 hours. For the same reason that it was impossible to place all due items on the m/r. The aircraft done the hours in arourd 4-6 weeks so 3 months not a problem. The beauty of having a system of maintenance to suit what you are doing. A lot of paper work but the benefits out way the pain.
Haydn thanx for the other but a little far away sorry. But apparently some poeple on here think i have some ultra ego, shame but no.
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
[QUOTE=Bend alot;9972651]I certainly am not Connedrod. (The NT C210 thread should make that clear)
That 6 month prop thing should go on the MR, many don't put it if they are high utilization aircraft. Past usage can be used to determine if it is low, normal or high utilization.
* A MR issued at 01:00 in the morning of 29/11/17 is valid for 12 months till 24:00 on 29/11/18(midnight).
Only time ive put 12 month items is when i had too release the aircraft that had a 13month M/R issue period.
But i had a muti engine turbine machine that we released for 3 months 100 hours. For the same reason that it was impossible to place all due items on the m/r. The aircraft done the hours in arourd 4-6 weeks so 3 months not a problem. The beauty of having a system of maintenance to suit what you are doing. A lot of paper work but the benefits out way the pain.
Haydn thanx for the other but a little far away sorry. But apparently some poeple on here think i have some ultra ego, shame but no.
And the saddest bit is that Steve doesn’t realise how much of his diligent maintenance is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Makes him feel good and costs the owner lots, but the safety benefit?
Makes him feel good and costs the owner lots, but the safety benefit?
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From someone that spent most of thier flying carree on thier back alseep in a crew rest while fly at 35000 feet with built in redundant systems and a aircraft built by boeing.
So please tell me what extra maintenance is not required.
Please tell us what professional qualifications you have to make these coments.
Then what right you feel you have that right over an AD or manufactures right to make maintenance shedules and time limits on thier aircraft.
Just because after a flight you go home dose not mean nothing happened to your aircraft you just flew in. Btw i worked at the q for a while. Worse position i ever held and the worse engineering practices ive ever come across. I came away with how boeing made a great aircraft. This was also written in an Australian flying magazine in around 2002. I wish i had of seen the artical before i started. Because it was 100% true. This Q desease that you still stuffering from and a feeling of slelf importance is your down fall.
For someone that quoted no such thing as servicing in casa eyes until proven wrong. Your not an expert in maintenance no matter how much you think you are.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the captin driving your bus you had the highest rank.
In regrad to this subect you arnt even a second officer of that bus.
For a start maintaining your aircraft to a higher standard is cheaper than a lower standard. This is something your little brain cant come to grips with,
As for my stanards if my costumers arnt happy with me looking after thier aircraft to a higher standard than you wish them too then they will take thier aircraft else where. Stange this isnt happening but the opposite.
As for costing costumer extra money not so. Infact the opposite. If a commercial aircraft sits on the ground broken it cost not only fixing it which is the same cost but lost production and cost of getting to the aircraft. I maintain alot of commercial and private aircraft. Please tell us how many you look after. I know you will not as the questions ask of you , you cant answer because you cant.
You clearly dont understand maintenance and the regulations that we have kno choice in following.
As engineers we dont buy our jobs but earn it.
Btw im more above cost verses outcome than you will ever be.
And whislt you are free to flap your gums i any ever other lame have to work within the regs and law. We dont have any option than that and im sorry your not and no other person is worth me going to the big house for. The hangar can allways be opened and a aircraft pushed out for thoose that dont wist to comply with the law. So i guess no need for you to bring it here.
As engineers we dont buy our jobs but earn it.
(Thinx - I know I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.)
Connedrod's great idea above could maybe save airlines a motza --- as we only buy our jobs, nothing else involved, apparently.
HR -- Why not just put all the pilot jobs out to tender, lowest price/best bid gets the job, airline cadets with wealthy mummies and daddies (oft complained about on pprune) could buy an instant Captain's job. All too easy, can't understand why it hasn't already been tried.
Before I conclude, Lead Balloon, I must disagree, Only the Judea Log Book Statement People's Front (Provisional) have THE KNOWLEDGE to Maintain and Service the One True Path to Airworthiness.
And almost forgot, something I can agree with Conner Rod:
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRURTH..
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
(Thinx - I know I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.)
Connedrod's great idea above could maybe save airlines a motza --- as we only buy our jobs, nothing else involved, apparently.
HR -- Why not just put all the pilot jobs out to tender, lowest price/best bid gets the job, airline cadets with wealthy mummies and daddies (oft complained about on pprune) could buy an instant Captain's job. All too easy, can't understand why it hasn't already been tried.
Before I conclude, Lead Balloon, I must disagree, Only the Judea Log Book Statement People's Front (Provisional) have THE KNOWLEDGE to Maintain and Service the One True Path to Airworthiness.
And almost forgot, something I can agree with Conner Rod:
Indeed, I probably never have, because, to tell the absolute genuine truth (as opposed to all the other kinds of truth) I don’t have a clue what a TRURTH is? Is it furry, feathery, got scales, does it bite? Is it Epicurean of Episcopalian, thespian of homosapien , mammalian or mammarian. Please Explain.
Tootle pip!!
(Thinx - I know I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.)
Connedrod's great idea above could maybe save airlines a motza --- as we only buy our jobs, nothing else involved, apparently.
HR -- Why not just put all the pilot jobs out to tender, lowest price/best bid gets the job, airline cadets with wealthy mummies and daddies (oft complained about on pprune) could buy an instant Captain's job. All too easy, can't understand why it hasn't already been tried.
Before I conclude, Lead Balloon, I must disagree, Only the Judea Log Book Statement People's Front (Provisional) have THE KNOWLEDGE to Maintain and Service the One True Path to Airworthiness.
And almost forgot, something I can agree with Conner Rod:
Indeed, I probably never have, because, to tell the absolute genuine truth (as opposed to all the other kinds of truth) I don’t have a clue what a TRURTH is? Is it furry, feathery, got scales, does it bite? Is it Epicurean of Episcopalian, thespian of homosapien , mammalian or mammarian. Please Explain.
Tootle pip!!
You cant train an engineer in 1 year.
The Q still coming out in you leadie you really need to get some help with that.
So last year we took our little grandson to the circus really one with clowns and animals ( not you leadie even if you fit)
Apart from all the stuff that came out was a monkey on a little push bike. Funny as fuk till the chain come off. He was fuked. Just stop. He looked at it. He looked at the fella with him. Just go to prove, you can teach a monkey to ride a bike but you cant teach him to fix it.
Your biggest problem is your q syndrome and your inabillity to interact with what you think of poeple below you.
Its not uncommon with tne folk like yourselves. You cant be told. Clearly that can be seen just in these threads,you knowledge of the regs is not as good as you thought it was, down to a simple question on serviceing and maintenance.
You need to remove you butt plug and wake up your not on the top of the plie. You eat ****e breath and die like the rest of us.
down to a simple question on serviceing and maintenance.
Actually, I could reproduce a paper on this subject, but it is too long for a pprune post.
Suffice to say, "maintenance" is defined in the Civil Aviation Act 1988" (the ACT).
It is not further defined in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (the CARs)
"Servicing" is defined in the CARs, and specifically excludes anything that is defined as maintenance.
As far as I can see, neither is further defined in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASRs), including the Dictionary.
Let me make it clear, I support the US approach, where the differentiation between "maintenance" and "servicing" is clear.
Just one example, fueling is defined as a maintenance task in both Schedule 5 and Schedule 8 of the CARs, and within any reasonable interpretation of the definition of maintenance in the ACT.
Therefor, it cannot be "servicing".
Fueling is included in various CASA publications, like a previously mentioned CASA AWB on "servicing", (which looks like it has been copied from US sources, regardless of Australian legislative differences) , where many items on the "servicing" lists, including fueling, are clearly not "servicing". but maintenance, under Australian legislation.
All the US POH/AFMs, etc are produced against a background of the US legislation, not Australian, but CASA resolutely hold to the position that only Australian legislation applies to a VH- (or other Australian) aircraft.
Therefor, the CASA position, which I don't like, is that, where ever there is a conflict, the Australian legislation prevails, and many things that US may publish as "servicing", are in our system, maintenance, and subject to who can perform that maintenance.
It is an understatement to say that the aforementioned AWB on "servicing" is misleading.
Then there is the can of worms of what is and is not "approved data", again the US system of "acceptable data", a far more efficient and less litigious approach, as is the whole US system.
As to what is "mandatory", it is a simple fact that a number of publications (SB/AC/AWB) depending on context, may constitute AN acceptable means of compliance (AMC- a term universally - I hope - understood) but they are never mandatory or "the law".
This is a simple statement of fact, no matter how devoutly some of you believe otherwise, or how contemptuous our mate Conned Rod is of pilots, because we just "buy" our jobs.
Perhaps we should consider whether a LAME is really an "engineer" at all, rather than a mechanic, engine fitter, sheet metal worker, painter, electrician, whatever. The inescapable fact is that a LAME is a tradesman.
An "engineer" is somebody (to simplify it) who is qualified for some level of membership of the Australian Institute of Engineers, or a similar body, which usually, but not always, means at least an undergraduate degree in the discipline.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May i suggest for a start that you really have no glue leadie at all.
Car 1988 follows please read carefully for the word servicing. This is unless the car is not law.
PLEASE NOTE ITEM 3 FOR A START.
Schedule 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC (4)
(subregulation 42ZC (4))
1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4. Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5. Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed — the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7. Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8. Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non‑structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
Car 1988 follows please read carefully for the word servicing. This is unless the car is not law.
PLEASE NOTE ITEM 3 FOR A START.
Schedule 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC (4)
(subregulation 42ZC (4))
1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4. Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5. Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed — the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7. Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8. Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non‑structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
Last edited by Connedrod; 1st Dec 2017 at 06:18.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also we are not the usa and as such we have to follow the Australian government regulations.
Anything else is not applicable in ant shape manner or form.
At no time have i said that these regulations are good bad or indifferent. They are the law i and every lame must adhere to.
The word licence aircraft maintenance engineer is wirrten in law. At any time the word lame is used in a the regs it is law.
Please advise me were i may find your interpretation of the word engineer in law.
Clearly they dont own the word "engineer".
It could be said that they are useing the word illegally and such action shoulds stop immediately.
Anything else is not applicable in ant shape manner or form.
At no time have i said that these regulations are good bad or indifferent. They are the law i and every lame must adhere to.
The word licence aircraft maintenance engineer is wirrten in law. At any time the word lame is used in a the regs it is law.
Please advise me were i may find your interpretation of the word engineer in law.
Clearly they dont own the word "engineer".
It could be said that they are useing the word illegally and such action shoulds stop immediately.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again car42zc definition of servicing
servicing, in relation to an aircraft, means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids that are necessary for its operation, but does not include any work that is maintenance.
servicing, in relation to an aircraft, means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids that are necessary for its operation, but does not include any work that is maintenance.
There is no can of worms on what is or is not "approved data" all forms of approved data are listed in REG 2a.
It is any data given by certain entities. CAsA, Approved design engineers and manufactures.
Every bit is approved data! In Australia, just use the highest on the list.
Or it will be the "incorrect approved data" but still approved data.
It is any data given by certain entities. CAsA, Approved design engineers and manufactures.
Every bit is approved data! In Australia, just use the highest on the list.
Or it will be the "incorrect approved data" but still approved data.
Folks,
(Thinx - I know I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.)
Connedrod's great idea above could maybe save airlines a motza --- as we only buy our jobs, nothing else involved, apparently.
HR -- Why not just put all the pilot jobs out to tender, lowest price/best bid gets the job, airline cadets with wealthy mummies and daddies (oft complained about on pprune) could buy an instant Captain's job. All too easy, can't understand why it hasn't already been tried.
Before I conclude, Lead Balloon, I must disagree, Only the Judea Log Book Statement People's Front (Provisional) have THE KNOWLEDGE to Maintain and Service the One True Path to Airworthiness.
And almost forgot, something I can agree with Conner Rod:
Indeed, I probably never have, because, to tell the absolute genuine truth (as opposed to all the other kinds of truth) I don’t have a clue what a TRURTH is? Is it furry, feathery, got scales, does it bite? Is it Epicurean of Episcopalian, thespian of homosapien , mammalian or mammarian. Please Explain.
Tootle pip!!
(Thinx - I know I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.)
Connedrod's great idea above could maybe save airlines a motza --- as we only buy our jobs, nothing else involved, apparently.
HR -- Why not just put all the pilot jobs out to tender, lowest price/best bid gets the job, airline cadets with wealthy mummies and daddies (oft complained about on pprune) could buy an instant Captain's job. All too easy, can't understand why it hasn't already been tried.
Before I conclude, Lead Balloon, I must disagree, Only the Judea Log Book Statement People's Front (Provisional) have THE KNOWLEDGE to Maintain and Service the One True Path to Airworthiness.
And almost forgot, something I can agree with Conner Rod:
Indeed, I probably never have, because, to tell the absolute genuine truth (as opposed to all the other kinds of truth) I don’t have a clue what a TRURTH is? Is it furry, feathery, got scales, does it bite? Is it Epicurean of Episcopalian, thespian of homosapien , mammalian or mammarian. Please Explain.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it appears you are what is known as a troll. So from this point onwards i will not respond to you and your silly games.
Folks
Our dear bus driver has posted numerous times now that servicing is not considered by casa and that its only a faa thing. (Among other stuff tghat proved to be lies)
So once again i have shown that this is not the case at all. This milliponation of the turth for his own personal self gratification to needs to stop. His unwillingness to be able to support his own words is a disgrace. He makes statements and continues to not back them up.
How many times can one person make stuff up. ( i guess for ever if your a greenie, lie, cheat and be outright dishonest) and proven wrong.
Quite frankly your credabillty is gone. Prehaps before you post lies you may wish to consider consulting someone that is acutely aware of the regulations as you clear are not and from what you have posted out of your league to do so.
As shown servicing and maintenance are clearly defined in the CARs. Cars when i last looked are law.
So leadie sled prehaps you should consider staying on your flying side of the fence. You claim to be an engineer of sorts god help us if that is correct. Im struggling how you could be when you cant even read the regs and have an understanding of them.
I can now have a greater understanding of why human factors is so in portant in flying. Did you bully your fallow pilots in the cockpit as you do myself.
You fail to answer relevant questions i gave to you so im guessing you will fail on this account as well.
So please do us all a favour.
Research research and recheck before you make comment on maintenance issues and regulations. As for flying go your hardest i couldnt give a rats arse what you say on that unless it becomes a maintenance issue.
Toot toot tootie pie