Flight Manuals 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Manuals 2
So it was all for nothing then?
(Can we get our money back for the new manuals?)
Doesnt it make you laugh!
Traditional Australian Flight Manual AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
WONDERFUL NEWS FOR AUSTRALIAN PILOTS ON THIS OTHERWISE BLACK DAY
YOU CAN NOW KEEP YOUR TAFM - CONTACT US TODAY AND BEAT THE RUSH
The Traditional Australian Flight Manual (TAFM) has been revived effective tomorrow, 12th September 2002.
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA congratulates and thanks John Anderson, (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) for promulgating the new rules. We also congratulate Mick Toller, the Director of CASA. This shows that John Anderson really does listen if people make their concerns very clear. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA has issued a Press Release unreservedly praising the Minister for listening.
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA also salutes its members who wrote to the Minister demanding that the TAFM be retained. Your polite but firm and clear messages were what persuaded the Minister and Mr. Toller that the TAFM should be retained.
Under the new rules you can apply to have your TAFM approved for your aircraft. If you are a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA we will apply on your behalf if you ask us to do so. We will ensure that you are at THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE. We will also ensure that it your application is dealt with promptly and is not refused unreasonably. If you are a member, and want to keep your TAFM, FAX US TODAY on the form below because there will be a rush.
If you are not a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA yet, why not join up right now and let us get your application in pronto? Just fill in the form below and we will contact you.
Boyd Munro, 11th September 2002
============================================================ ==============
(Can we get our money back for the new manuals?)
Doesnt it make you laugh!
Traditional Australian Flight Manual AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
WONDERFUL NEWS FOR AUSTRALIAN PILOTS ON THIS OTHERWISE BLACK DAY
YOU CAN NOW KEEP YOUR TAFM - CONTACT US TODAY AND BEAT THE RUSH
The Traditional Australian Flight Manual (TAFM) has been revived effective tomorrow, 12th September 2002.
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA congratulates and thanks John Anderson, (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) for promulgating the new rules. We also congratulate Mick Toller, the Director of CASA. This shows that John Anderson really does listen if people make their concerns very clear. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA has issued a Press Release unreservedly praising the Minister for listening.
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA also salutes its members who wrote to the Minister demanding that the TAFM be retained. Your polite but firm and clear messages were what persuaded the Minister and Mr. Toller that the TAFM should be retained.
Under the new rules you can apply to have your TAFM approved for your aircraft. If you are a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA we will apply on your behalf if you ask us to do so. We will ensure that you are at THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE. We will also ensure that it your application is dealt with promptly and is not refused unreasonably. If you are a member, and want to keep your TAFM, FAX US TODAY on the form below because there will be a rush.
If you are not a member of AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA yet, why not join up right now and let us get your application in pronto? Just fill in the form below and we will contact you.
Boyd Munro, 11th September 2002
============================================================ ==============
Whose idea was the change in the first place?
I have to laugh when I read about this stuff.
When your 'industry' is faced with the reality of what it asked for - freedom from the shackles of having the local regulator create and approve changes to a unique flight manual, with all the regulatory detritus that comes with that - the 'industry' lobbies to have the regulator keep it all in place! It's like the kid who leaves home to be independent, but then gets mom to wash his clothes and make his dinner.
When your 'industry' is faced with the reality of what it asked for - freedom from the shackles of having the local regulator create and approve changes to a unique flight manual, with all the regulatory detritus that comes with that - the 'industry' lobbies to have the regulator keep it all in place! It's like the kid who leaves home to be independent, but then gets mom to wash his clothes and make his dinner.
Grandpa Aerotart
So..seeing as how I had not got around to doing anyhing about a new manual for my aircraft...does this mean don't need to and my current manual remains approved?
Chuck.
Chuck.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight manuals
We have gone to great lengths and much expense to ensure we had the appropiate flight manuals in place at the allotted date.
Who pays us for the time and money wasted on this? It's just like CASA forcing us to buy fax machines, then computers, to have a corporate credit card and be on the internet only to shaft everybody by letting the contract for exams to a very incompetent business that has its home base as NZ. The exams are NOT as promised - i.e. 5 days a week. Students do not have the solitude that is rightfully theirs when sitting an exam - telephones ring and students sitting different exams come and go at will. Many companies spent in excess of $25,000.00 to buy computers for the cyberexam system believing they would be able to conduct at least IREX and CPL exams. When will this "corporate irresponsibility" by CASA cease?
Edited for spelling errors
Who pays us for the time and money wasted on this? It's just like CASA forcing us to buy fax machines, then computers, to have a corporate credit card and be on the internet only to shaft everybody by letting the contract for exams to a very incompetent business that has its home base as NZ. The exams are NOT as promised - i.e. 5 days a week. Students do not have the solitude that is rightfully theirs when sitting an exam - telephones ring and students sitting different exams come and go at will. Many companies spent in excess of $25,000.00 to buy computers for the cyberexam system believing they would be able to conduct at least IREX and CPL exams. When will this "corporate irresponsibility" by CASA cease?
Edited for spelling errors
Last edited by tealady; 12th Sep 2002 at 00:48.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Munro doesn't really achieve anything. Ask the Minister.
2) Chuck, interesting question. Now we don't know. Does my 1944 bugsmasher now need the old maunual I threw away after being told I didn't need one.
Great. We got what we wanted. It was a little hard for a few, so Munro stuffs it all up by making a political fuss.
Is there any hope for this industry????
2) Chuck, interesting question. Now we don't know. Does my 1944 bugsmasher now need the old maunual I threw away after being told I didn't need one.
Great. We got what we wanted. It was a little hard for a few, so Munro stuffs it all up by making a political fuss.
Is there any hope for this industry????
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULM,
Don't get personal. Not nice!
The whole AFM issue is a mess. On again off again. It was fine the way it was and the new way achieved little that I could see.
This often happen these days. Suddenly we get a new "thing" to do.......all in the name of safety. Rubbish.
Have you had time to have a look at the MEL issue? Try reading between the lines if you have a radio or GPS U/S. Must be fixed in "X' days.
But the AIP says you only need such and such.
I praise those who highlight the nonsense in an effort to get some commonsense back into the game........not muscle-bound, baseball wielding people with agenda's quite different to yours or mine.
Have a calm day
Don't get personal. Not nice!
The whole AFM issue is a mess. On again off again. It was fine the way it was and the new way achieved little that I could see.
This often happen these days. Suddenly we get a new "thing" to do.......all in the name of safety. Rubbish.
Have you had time to have a look at the MEL issue? Try reading between the lines if you have a radio or GPS U/S. Must be fixed in "X' days.
But the AIP says you only need such and such.
I praise those who highlight the nonsense in an effort to get some commonsense back into the game........not muscle-bound, baseball wielding people with agenda's quite different to yours or mine.
Have a calm day
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From some of the emails that have come as a result of this forum, particularly from a different organisation that represents us, it seems that it might not be all off after all ........
I'm still trying to laugh but, what an industry and what a regulator!
Now then, should we try something simple? IFR GPS installation and database requirements or something?
I'm still trying to laugh but, what an industry and what a regulator!
Now then, should we try something simple? IFR GPS installation and database requirements or something?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gunshy67,
I presume here you are referring to Ulm's comment about Mr Munro?
Believe me, it will be water off a duck's back to BM. It would want to be too given some of his vilification antics in the past.
Don't get personal. Not nice!
Believe me, it will be water off a duck's back to BM. It would want to be too given some of his vilification antics in the past.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that the industry screamed for this a few years back. Granted CASA's muddling ways didn't help. But now, because a few idiots have been too idle to get off thier fat bums and go get a manual, BM starts screaming and making it all the more complex. (I have done 4 different ones so far, it aint that hard!!! Even for a one of type aircraft 
)
So, who is going to update the old Manuals. You gonna keep CASA in the loop????
What happens if you have an accident and your chipmunk manual is different from the pommy chipmunk manual in an area related to the prang cos it is a TAFM and you didn't know how to update it???
So there we go back to the same insurance problem BM claims to have fixed.
In my opinion, BM is a well intentioned (but some what nasty) pommy meddler who is a little out of his depth. I know I am not alone in wishing he'd just go fly that silly looking Navajo into the sunset and retire from whatever it is he does.
)So, who is going to update the old Manuals. You gonna keep CASA in the loop????
What happens if you have an accident and your chipmunk manual is different from the pommy chipmunk manual in an area related to the prang cos it is a TAFM and you didn't know how to update it???
So there we go back to the same insurance problem BM claims to have fixed.
In my opinion, BM is a well intentioned (but some what nasty) pommy meddler who is a little out of his depth. I know I am not alone in wishing he'd just go fly that silly looking Navajo into the sunset and retire from whatever it is he does.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs Ulm,
Again not nice at all. Please solutions, not the other stuff!
I had/have an AFM approved by CASA. That was before the new rules about getting the manufacturers one in stead.
Do I go back to the old approved one or the new approved one.
I have contacted CASA and all they know is an extension to the deadline.
So can you or someone enlighten me as to the formal position.
With thanks.
Again not nice at all. Please solutions, not the other stuff!
I had/have an AFM approved by CASA. That was before the new rules about getting the manufacturers one in stead.
Do I go back to the old approved one or the new approved one.
I have contacted CASA and all they know is an extension to the deadline.
So can you or someone enlighten me as to the formal position.
With thanks.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Gunshy.
No, I aint nice. Not when f@@ls go about claiming the sky is falling.
Now, as to your questions.
1) See if you are on the exempt list. If you are, placard according to your TCDS. (you can download that from the FAA (big assumption there)).
2) If you aint, and think you should be. Get your TCDS and see if it specifies a manual. If it doesn't they will add you to the list. Goto 1)
3) If you are on the list get the manual. The CASA help center will tell you which one you must have. When you have it they will even e-mail you an approval page. If you have an STC you need to put those pages in. (They should be in your old manual, otherwise get them from the STC owner).'
4) The 'TAFM'??? Bu&&ered if I know Not on top of that. In certain circumstances it makes sense but is fraught with liability danger.
Chuck
No, I aint nice. Not when f@@ls go about claiming the sky is falling.
Now, as to your questions.
1) See if you are on the exempt list. If you are, placard according to your TCDS. (you can download that from the FAA (big assumption there)).
2) If you aint, and think you should be. Get your TCDS and see if it specifies a manual. If it doesn't they will add you to the list. Goto 1)
3) If you are on the list get the manual. The CASA help center will tell you which one you must have. When you have it they will even e-mail you an approval page. If you have an STC you need to put those pages in. (They should be in your old manual, otherwise get them from the STC owner).'
4) The 'TAFM'??? Bu&&ered if I know
Not on top of that. In certain circumstances it makes sense but is fraught with liability danger.Chuck
Moderator
Please folks, let's not confuse the likes of BM or AOPA with "industry"!!!!!
The TAFM (?) contains very little useful information about how to actually operate the aircraft, unlike the manufacturers POH. The ones I came across were mostly badly typed if not illegible and often had pages missing. When I came here from overseas I was amazed that these little things were legal documents.
Like tealady we got ours before the (original) deadline. It wasn't difficult, it wasn't cheap either, but was definately the better way to go. Things that are easily found in the POH were becoming the stuff of old wives tales. I'd rather follow the manufacturers recommendations than a tatty old file full of scrappy pages.
There seem to be some people who just object to things for the sake of being awkward, that's how they end up contradicting themselves so much.
The TAFM (?) contains very little useful information about how to actually operate the aircraft, unlike the manufacturers POH. The ones I came across were mostly badly typed if not illegible and often had pages missing. When I came here from overseas I was amazed that these little things were legal documents.
Like tealady we got ours before the (original) deadline. It wasn't difficult, it wasn't cheap either, but was definately the better way to go. Things that are easily found in the POH were becoming the stuff of old wives tales. I'd rather follow the manufacturers recommendations than a tatty old file full of scrappy pages.
There seem to be some people who just object to things for the sake of being awkward, that's how they end up contradicting themselves so much.
Grandpa Aerotart
Was discussing this issue today with the CFI at a certain SE Qld Aero Club and, having been shown some paperwork, am convinced that NOTHING has been reversed AT ALL.
New Serialised Manufacturers Flight Manuals ARE STILL REQUIRED!
As for the relative merits of the local product verses what we are going to....I agree with CFI...the Oz Manuals may have been OK back in the dark ages but not anymore.
I will be ordering mine on Monday...the only reason it has not been done before now is that I've been overseas for a few years and the aircraft has been in a hangar in bits for the last 7 odd months.
Chuck.
New Serialised Manufacturers Flight Manuals ARE STILL REQUIRED!
As for the relative merits of the local product verses what we are going to....I agree with CFI...the Oz Manuals may have been OK back in the dark ages but not anymore.
I will be ordering mine on Monday...the only reason it has not been done before now is that I've been overseas for a few years and the aircraft has been in a hangar in bits for the last 7 odd months.
Chuck.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr/Ms Ulm,
Don't be un-nice. We need nice people in the game, don't you think?
When the new rules were published I did all that and have the approval page etc.. I always try to do it now rather than later and to keep thoroughly legal.
I am amazed at the costs I hear about. $600 for an AFM? If that is true then it was rip-off.
I had my USA office buy one from the local agent for my tail number and it cost $40 (AUD}!!!!!!!
My main question is what is the status of the "old" Australianised AFM versus the new "Manufacturers one".
From what Chimbu chuckles has stated, there is no change and the current scene is that the new "Manufacturers one" is still a requirement, notwithstanding that prosecution for no compliance will not be invoked untill 2003.
That again is a nonsense!
Dear Chimbu chuckles,
Thanks for your input. I take it you are absoluetly sure that the new AFM is still a requirement?
Don't be un-nice. We need nice people in the game, don't you think?
When the new rules were published I did all that and have the approval page etc.. I always try to do it now rather than later and to keep thoroughly legal.
I am amazed at the costs I hear about. $600 for an AFM? If that is true then it was rip-off.
I had my USA office buy one from the local agent for my tail number and it cost $40 (AUD}!!!!!!!
My main question is what is the status of the "old" Australianised AFM versus the new "Manufacturers one".
From what Chimbu chuckles has stated, there is no change and the current scene is that the new "Manufacturers one" is still a requirement, notwithstanding that prosecution for no compliance will not be invoked untill 2003.
That again is a nonsense!
Dear Chimbu chuckles,
Thanks for your input. I take it you are absoluetly sure that the new AFM is still a requirement?
Flight Manuals
This whole exercise is a mess and we are paying for it
I can demonstrate that the NEW flight manual under certain circumstances may cause incorrect data to be looked up, leaving open the door for causing an accident or engine or airframe damage.
Many TAFMs were quite satisfactory and to retain them should always have been an option.
I can demonstrate that the NEW flight manual under certain circumstances may cause incorrect data to be looked up, leaving open the door for causing an accident or engine or airframe damage.
Many TAFMs were quite satisfactory and to retain them should always have been an option.
Moderator
By NEW do you mean the original manufacturers one that was an integral part of the aircraft when it was sold, or the Australian one that was produced later?
I would be interested in your demonstration.
I would be interested in your demonstration.
Flight Manuals
By NEW, I mean the one that had to be "written" to comply with the new CASA requirements. (there was not one previously provided by the mfgr)
The aircraft was delivered new with one of those little black flight manuals that everyone had. That was it.
The NEW manual written now casa say has to reflect the aircraft when it was built. However if it has since been modified to such an extent that it is no longer the aircraft that it was built as then the NEW flight manual does NOT reflect the a/c as it is now. This data is buried in section 9 IN ADDITION to all the data that is no longer relevant.
If having two sets of data in a flight manual you consider safe, that’s fine, but I certainly don’t.
The potential for confusion is unacceptable.
The aircraft was delivered new with one of those little black flight manuals that everyone had. That was it.
The NEW manual written now casa say has to reflect the aircraft when it was built. However if it has since been modified to such an extent that it is no longer the aircraft that it was built as then the NEW flight manual does NOT reflect the a/c as it is now. This data is buried in section 9 IN ADDITION to all the data that is no longer relevant.
If having two sets of data in a flight manual you consider safe, that’s fine, but I certainly don’t.
The potential for confusion is unacceptable.
Moderator
Is not the intention that any modifications are reflected in Supplements to the basic manual ? ... no different to the US situation.
If you have a bird with differences, then the new AFM has to have raised for its benefit appropriate supplements.
If you have a bird with differences, then the new AFM has to have raised for its benefit appropriate supplements.