Flight Manuals 2
JT - that may be casa's intention, but from a practical and safety point of view it is not a very desirable situation. Especially when the supplement changes every bit of of data except maybe the dimensions etc. Having two lots of data is just plane dumb and potentially a safety hazard. Makes you wonder when the existing manual reflects the aircraft in its modified condition.
Grandpa Aerotart
Well having ordered my new manual through HP Bankstown (Aus$186 +GST)...dunno where you guys get this $400 stuff from...Beechcraft aren't exactly renown for being cheap
...I find that the previous owners had already supplied one with the exact same part number.
This is what happens when you actually haven't been near your own aircraft in nearly two years
(due living overseas in case you're wondering why.)
So in my aircrafts glovebox was both the Beechcraft Flight Manual and the DCA one, it's a 1970 model so it was DCA then
and all I have to do is move the supplements from one to the other, get it approved presumedly, and Bob is your cross dressing Aunty.
I had thought about cancelling the order for the newer one but decided that having one at home as well as the one in the aircraft was worth $200 odd.
As far as my A36 is concerned the general info in the manual is very good, as you'd expect from Beechcraft, and combined with the aircraft specific data from the old DCA manual will provide an excellent Approved Flight Manual.
I honestly don't see what people are complaining about...it's an improvement.
Chuck.
...I find that the previous owners had already supplied one with the exact same part number.This is what happens when you actually haven't been near your own aircraft in nearly two years
(due living overseas in case you're wondering why.)So in my aircrafts glovebox was both the Beechcraft Flight Manual and the DCA one, it's a 1970 model so it was DCA then
and all I have to do is move the supplements from one to the other, get it approved presumedly, and Bob is your cross dressing Aunty.I had thought about cancelling the order for the newer one but decided that having one at home as well as the one in the aircraft was worth $200 odd.
As far as my A36 is concerned the general info in the manual is very good, as you'd expect from Beechcraft, and combined with the aircraft specific data from the old DCA manual will provide an excellent Approved Flight Manual.
I honestly don't see what people are complaining about...it's an improvement.
Chuck.
Moderator
Cogwheel,
You appear to be talking about a pretty serious set of modifications.
There are two pathways from which to choose
(a) smaller mods are addressed by supplements which stay in the manual but only apply when the mod is installed/active
(b) a major rework normally is the subject of an STC and the aircraft typically has a new flight manual developed and is given a new designation ... this may be a little different under the current rules ... I am a bit removed from current Australian practice.
The actual path taken should be assessed in consultation with your friendly local CAR 35 man or the local CASA Engineering people... your profile doesn't tell me where you are located. Do send me an email with a few details and I can suggest a name or two for you ..
You appear to be talking about a pretty serious set of modifications.
There are two pathways from which to choose
(a) smaller mods are addressed by supplements which stay in the manual but only apply when the mod is installed/active
(b) a major rework normally is the subject of an STC and the aircraft typically has a new flight manual developed and is given a new designation ... this may be a little different under the current rules ... I am a bit removed from current Australian practice.
The actual path taken should be assessed in consultation with your friendly local CAR 35 man or the local CASA Engineering people... your profile doesn't tell me where you are located. Do send me an email with a few details and I can suggest a name or two for you ..
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles, Cessna Pacific quoted me $417.16 for my C 152 POH. When it got delivered it actually was $491.06. It has 2 more amendments in it than the manual I had. Why was I not able just to buy the extra 2 amendments? And I still have to incorporate the old P Charts to be able to calculate climb weight limits. It's crazy.
Grandpa Aerotart
I Fly,
Now that's obscene...$500 for a C152 POH I think I got 'given' one with my Cessna Pilot Center Pack when I started at Rex in 1981.
It will be interesting to see whether there is any difference between the 'new' Bonanza POH and the one that came with the aircraft...same part number but who knows what the amendment status is.
My Bonanza has an IO550 as opposed to the IO520 it was initially fitted with and a 3 blade Blac Mac prop as opposed to the original Hartzell 2 blade. All the STC'd data for those mods is in the OZ AFM and will be suitably installed into the new POH, along with the P charts etc, when it arrives...some judicious photocopying should see me with two identical Aircraft Flight Manuals. More by accident than design.
Interesting to see that the CASA 'approved' manual covers every Bonanza from E-001 to E-926....mine being E-219...so it will need some 'tweaking' to be a truly aircraft specific document, but I enjoy that stuff.
Cogwheel,
If your aircraft is so highly modified surely you need to build a complete new manual from scratch...using a combination of manufacturers or DCA Data as appropriate. You could end up with a really good document for not THAT much effort...surely you know your own aeroplane well enough to know what needs to be in it. I would think that the last thing anyone wants to see, let alone CASA, is 'two manuals in one' with conflicting data. I would agree with JT that a few hours spent with CASA Engineering/airworthiness and some thoughtful time at home would yield a manual that CASA will be happy to approve.
Chuck.
Now that's obscene...$500 for a C152 POH
I think I got 'given' one with my Cessna Pilot Center Pack when I started at Rex in 1981. It will be interesting to see whether there is any difference between the 'new' Bonanza POH and the one that came with the aircraft...same part number but who knows what the amendment status is.
My Bonanza has an IO550 as opposed to the IO520 it was initially fitted with and a 3 blade Blac Mac prop as opposed to the original Hartzell 2 blade. All the STC'd data for those mods is in the OZ AFM and will be suitably installed into the new POH, along with the P charts etc, when it arrives...some judicious photocopying should see me with two identical Aircraft Flight Manuals. More by accident than design.
Interesting to see that the CASA 'approved' manual covers every Bonanza from E-001 to E-926....mine being E-219...so it will need some 'tweaking' to be a truly aircraft specific document, but I enjoy that stuff.
Cogwheel,
If your aircraft is so highly modified surely you need to build a complete new manual from scratch...using a combination of manufacturers or DCA Data as appropriate. You could end up with a really good document for not THAT much effort...surely you know your own aeroplane well enough to know what needs to be in it. I would think that the last thing anyone wants to see, let alone CASA, is 'two manuals in one' with conflicting data. I would agree with JT that a few hours spent with CASA Engineering/airworthiness and some thoughtful time at home would yield a manual that CASA will be happy to approve.
Chuck.
In respect to the aircraft I refer to, it has been modified by STC and is no longer the model that it was when rolled out of the factory. (eg: a bit like changing a C150 to a C152 with a bigger engine)
CASA say that the new flight manual must be that of what was rolled out of the factory, but as I said it is no longer that model.
My CAR35 man wanted to provide a manual to reflect the existing status of the aircraft but CASA told him no, it (the mod) must be in Section 9...!
JT in your response (a) - agreed. (b) Yes, it was a major rework and was provided with a old sylye DCA AFM to cover the mod. But this is no longer acceptable to CASA - they want the old pre mod manual with the mods in section 9 ... what crap!
My CAR35 man tried as above but CASA would not move.....
Chimbo.. tryied what you suggest but as above CASA not interested. We have all the data to do a AFM that reflects the modified aircraft, but thats not what CASA want. They want what we don't... two lots of data in the same book...
I certainly wont be happy until the AFM reflects the aircraft as is now. Pitty is the change process should have thought of this and made provision.
CASA say that the new flight manual must be that of what was rolled out of the factory, but as I said it is no longer that model.
My CAR35 man wanted to provide a manual to reflect the existing status of the aircraft but CASA told him no, it (the mod) must be in Section 9...!
JT in your response (a) - agreed. (b) Yes, it was a major rework and was provided with a old sylye DCA AFM to cover the mod. But this is no longer acceptable to CASA - they want the old pre mod manual with the mods in section 9 ... what crap!
My CAR35 man tried as above but CASA would not move.....
Chimbo.. tryied what you suggest but as above CASA not interested. We have all the data to do a AFM that reflects the modified aircraft, but thats not what CASA want. They want what we don't... two lots of data in the same book...
I certainly wont be happy until the AFM reflects the aircraft as is now. Pitty is the change process should have thought of this and made provision.
Last edited by cogwheel; 21st Sep 2002 at 14:28.
Moderator
Cogwheel,
Sounds a bit offkey to me but it gets back to a question of how involved the mod(s) is(are). As I said earlier I am a little out of the Australian loop so I am not able to comment with any competence.
Suggest you give John Klingberg in Canberra a call via 131 757 .. he is the Flight Manuals bossman last I heard ... a nice bloke as well ... and should be able to tell you what the REAL story is.
One of the problems in recent years has been that the District Offices are just as confused at times as the rest of us and there is the occasional procedural discrepancy between one and the other ....
Sounds a bit offkey to me but it gets back to a question of how involved the mod(s) is(are). As I said earlier I am a little out of the Australian loop so I am not able to comment with any competence.
Suggest you give John Klingberg in Canberra a call via 131 757 .. he is the Flight Manuals bossman last I heard ... a nice bloke as well ... and should be able to tell you what the REAL story is.
One of the problems in recent years has been that the District Offices are just as confused at times as the rest of us and there is the occasional procedural discrepancy between one and the other ....
Well, the moratorium on Flight Manuals ended a few weeks ago. How's everyone going with it?
I thought it was a good time to review the rules of the game. I've quoted the relevant rules below for your information.
CAAP 54-1(2) encourages us to continue to use the old weight and balance loading system as well as the old P charts. It also states that operational data is not required to be in the AFM.
i.e. It encourages the continued use of pages from the old Australian Flight Manual. It suggests that the old CAO 100.7 over-rides the new Regulation Part 23. It states that certain sections of the new Regulations below do not apply, by an interpretation of the old Reg 54! Reg 54 itself calls up, indirectly, FAR 23 so para 23.1581 can never go away.
The regulations below are quite clear. If there is information required to comply with operating rules (such as CAO 20.7.4) then such information must be in the Flight Manual - and that doesn't mean that an operator can simply slip the old stuff into the Flight Manual folder himself - there are clear rules on how changes to Flight Manuals are approved.
Important - read Reg 138 - you must comply with instructions and procedures in the Flight Manual - you must not operate the aeroplane contrary to the Flight Manual. I'd say that Reg 38 takes precedence over any CAAP or CAO.
FAR 23. 1581 is quite clear and that's going to remain with us. Reg 54 will go when the new CASR 91 takes effect - at that time there will be absolutely no basis for the sugegstion that the old Flight Manual data may be used. Of course, CAO 20.7.4 and CAO 100.7 will disappear as well. I look forward to the next round of Flight Manual changes.
Finally, please don't spend too much time on this subject right now - the big thing on the agenda now is the FLOT Conference. I'll see you there.
________________________________________________
Reg 138 requires that pilots "must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual"
CASR 23 calls up FAR 23 and para 23.1581 states:
"An Airplane Flight Manual must be furnished with each airplane, and it must contain the following:
(1) Information required by Secs. 23.1583 through 23.1589.
(2) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
[(3) Further information necessary to comply with the relevant operating rules.]"
Reg 54 states "that flight manual; or
(b) in any other case — any manual or other document (not being a placard) that must, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, be provided with the aircraft and contain the following information and instructions about the aircraft:
(i) the limitations within which, under the relevant airworthiness standards, it is considered airworthy;
(ii) any other information, and any instructions, necessary for its safe operation."
I thought it was a good time to review the rules of the game. I've quoted the relevant rules below for your information.
CAAP 54-1(2) encourages us to continue to use the old weight and balance loading system as well as the old P charts. It also states that operational data is not required to be in the AFM.
i.e. It encourages the continued use of pages from the old Australian Flight Manual. It suggests that the old CAO 100.7 over-rides the new Regulation Part 23. It states that certain sections of the new Regulations below do not apply, by an interpretation of the old Reg 54! Reg 54 itself calls up, indirectly, FAR 23 so para 23.1581 can never go away.
The regulations below are quite clear. If there is information required to comply with operating rules (such as CAO 20.7.4) then such information must be in the Flight Manual - and that doesn't mean that an operator can simply slip the old stuff into the Flight Manual folder himself - there are clear rules on how changes to Flight Manuals are approved.
Important - read Reg 138 - you must comply with instructions and procedures in the Flight Manual - you must not operate the aeroplane contrary to the Flight Manual. I'd say that Reg 38 takes precedence over any CAAP or CAO.
FAR 23. 1581 is quite clear and that's going to remain with us. Reg 54 will go when the new CASR 91 takes effect - at that time there will be absolutely no basis for the sugegstion that the old Flight Manual data may be used. Of course, CAO 20.7.4 and CAO 100.7 will disappear as well. I look forward to the next round of Flight Manual changes.
Finally, please don't spend too much time on this subject right now - the big thing on the agenda now is the FLOT Conference. I'll see you there.
________________________________________________
Reg 138 requires that pilots "must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual"
CASR 23 calls up FAR 23 and para 23.1581 states:
"An Airplane Flight Manual must be furnished with each airplane, and it must contain the following:
(1) Information required by Secs. 23.1583 through 23.1589.
(2) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
[(3) Further information necessary to comply with the relevant operating rules.]"
Reg 54 states "that flight manual; or
(b) in any other case — any manual or other document (not being a placard) that must, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, be provided with the aircraft and contain the following information and instructions about the aircraft:
(i) the limitations within which, under the relevant airworthiness standards, it is considered airworthy;
(ii) any other information, and any instructions, necessary for its safe operation."
