Maintenance releases
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeHav
Disappointing to see you airing your persecution complex over the Engineering Preflights on a totally irrelevant thread. And I'll say again...no-one is having a 'sledge' or anything else derogatory regarding pilots
Also interesting to see you use the term ' pilot exterior inspection' for the first time. If I didn't know better, I'd say you'd seen the light and now acknowledge that an engineering preflight and the pilot exterior inspection are different animals.
Go figure...
P.S. And to throw the cat amongst the pigeons as it were for this thread, the new regs delete the Maintenance release and replace it with 'Return to Service'!
From NPRM0109MS P.19:
EFFECT ON STAKEHOLDERS
'For people carrying out maintenance the proposal introduces new
terminology for returning an aircraft to service. The terminology aligns with other NAA’s requirements and removes the 2-year validity of the existing maintenance release framework.
Registered operators and pilots will see different documents attesting to the serviceability of the aircraft.'
BENEFITS
'The ability for a LAME to state the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection is not practical. The proposal brings a clearer interpretation of what the return to service actually means.
Standardises the Australian requirements to bring them into
line with international best practice.'
COSTS
'There is no additional cost to this proposal.'
Cheers
AND because the engineers are sledging pilots for not doing the pilot exterior inspection correctly.
Also interesting to see you use the term ' pilot exterior inspection' for the first time. If I didn't know better, I'd say you'd seen the light and now acknowledge that an engineering preflight and the pilot exterior inspection are different animals.
Go figure...
P.S. And to throw the cat amongst the pigeons as it were for this thread, the new regs delete the Maintenance release and replace it with 'Return to Service'!
From NPRM0109MS P.19:
EFFECT ON STAKEHOLDERS
'For people carrying out maintenance the proposal introduces new
terminology for returning an aircraft to service. The terminology aligns with other NAA’s requirements and removes the 2-year validity of the existing maintenance release framework.
Registered operators and pilots will see different documents attesting to the serviceability of the aircraft.'
BENEFITS
'The ability for a LAME to state the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection is not practical. The proposal brings a clearer interpretation of what the return to service actually means.
Standardises the Australian requirements to bring them into
line with international best practice.'
COSTS
'There is no additional cost to this proposal.'
Cheers
Last edited by AN LAME; 17th Mar 2003 at 05:34.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 years in prison eh?
That must be a really serious offence.
Hypothetically speaking then (I know it never happens really), what should a LAME do to avoid becoming embroiled in this really serious offence if an aircraft arrives for a 50hrly having overrun its MR, or perhaps an A/D by 0.5 hours with nothing written on the MR to say that is OK?
Or is all this perhaps a little bit theoretical?
That must be a really serious offence.
Hypothetically speaking then (I know it never happens really), what should a LAME do to avoid becoming embroiled in this really serious offence if an aircraft arrives for a 50hrly having overrun its MR, or perhaps an A/D by 0.5 hours with nothing written on the MR to say that is OK?
Or is all this perhaps a little bit theoretical?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZER!
Were the hell do you get off telling people that they can overrun their medicals by 30 days? There is absolutely NO provision to overrun a medical....on the expiry date, if you haven't had it either extended by a DAME or been issued with a brand new one, then all flying subject to that certificate MUST CEASE.......simple really but this galloot comes along and has probably created another area where somebody will think it is OK to overrun a very serious document!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 150'amsl
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50 Hourly's
If you loook at the MR all checks and maintenance are written in the same section, headed up by "Maintenance Required" if you have a 50 hourly written in this section, it as to be done at that time. Some LAME's enter it as 50 Hourly recommended to try and say that it doesn't really need to be done then, and maybe +- 5 or so hours is OK. But the bottom line is that if it is written in the Maintenance Required section it has to be done. If you are just doing 50 Hourly oil changes and aren't required to do them simply don't have it written in this section, and complete the 50 hourly as close to 50 hours as you can thus giving yourself +- 5 hours if required.
Cheer's
Cheer's
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are all different
As Blue Hauler and others have said, each individual approved operator has thier own system approved by CASA.
That means that lots of what is writen here may be correct for that operator or maintenance system.
There is no one rule, each aircraft and operator needs to be looked at individualy.
If you are flying same aircraft with same company, then it is not to dificult to keep on top of the system in use. If you are flying several different types from different organisations then you need to rehash each system reguarly to keep on top of it.
I find that flying both GA and airline style equipment from different organisations, that I need to review the GA MR's each time to ensure that I don't get caught.
Questions to the Chief Engineer will result in the correct answer, most of the time!
That means that lots of what is writen here may be correct for that operator or maintenance system.
There is no one rule, each aircraft and operator needs to be looked at individualy.
If you are flying same aircraft with same company, then it is not to dificult to keep on top of the system in use. If you are flying several different types from different organisations then you need to rehash each system reguarly to keep on top of it.
I find that flying both GA and airline style equipment from different organisations, that I need to review the GA MR's each time to ensure that I don't get caught.
Questions to the Chief Engineer will result in the correct answer, most of the time!
