CAAP 215-1 (1)
 

Has any body yet come to grips with CAAP 215-1 (1) Guide to Preparation of Operations Manuals,which came into being last August? More importantly has CASA yet approved (OK accepted) an Ops Manual written to this CAAP?
Looks to be very ... comprehensive.

Yes, and yes and still waiting.
Write the Manual to follow exactly the paragraph arrangement and you will be fine.

and buy yourself some really strong sedatives - you'll need them.

Rgmb, you have hit the nail on the head. The time taken to aprove ops manuals and issue an AOC is abysmal, disheartening and killing general aviation.

Does anyone know anyone who has got an AOC in less than 12 months? 2 years seems to be the norm. How can this be good?

Folks,
Just as well the big operators don't have to jump through the same hoops of fire that besets GA, the majors would never get airborne.
You would never believe that a CAAP is, more or less;"A way but not the only way to comply" when CAAPs are treated as if they were regulatory, just as MOSs are being treated as regulatory.
It seem the "compliance teams" can't figure out if a manual is compliant, unless it follows the CAAP word for word -- or they farm out assessment to a contractor --- anything but make a decision.
What is being demanded of checklists and QRHs is nothing short of dangerous, as well as ignoring CASR Part 21 and CAR 138.
Tootle pip!!

Which part

The above quote only applies to a few in CASA. The rest must read CAO 82.1

The other requirement is that the OM has comply with the Compliance Statement. The Compliance Statement really determines what goes in an OM.

In practice, we could do away with the CAAP and allow operators to determine a logical format for the OM based on their particular operation.

In the CAAP Headings appear more than once - Bird/animal and references to Annexes that do not exist.

Must have missed that one. Is it law yet?

I think Leaddie's reference to CAR 138 is to existing CAR (1988) 138.

I can assure you that even when you copy & paste word for word the CASA provided example for a DAMP manual, you get audited and a non conformance list of several things and a nasty letter threatening all sorts of things.

And, when you ask the audit guy can we just save the hassle and alter the document to your liking on the spot.....the answer is no. He has a process to follow :ugh::ugh::ugh:

And then when you battle the F:mad:ing morons about it, you get nowhere. Guilty for doing the right thing the first time :rolleyes:

No I am not making this up.

Creamie, and tell the good folk what you really think of CAAP's. I love your story on CAAP's :} :ok:

I have no idea what you are talking about, Jaba. :confused:

I have never read a CAAP, and never intend doing so.

I therefore have no thoughts about them. :p

And here ends the lesson on craaps :}

Creamie haven't you read the CAAP on losing a ****ter on T/O?

Agreed 601.

There is really only one way of achieving an 'accepted' operations manual. Write the manual to satisfy the Compliance Statement. That is what you'll be primarily audited on. Should also bear in mind that the Check & Training Manual is the only manual that is approved (where said company is seeking the liberties provided by CAR217). The rest, by and large, are 'accepted'. The catch however is that a compliance statement must be able to be satisfied from the contents of the manual. Obviously this is a simplistic explanation to a complex issue but may assist some in understanding the process.

D

Only to the extent its content has been quoted on PPRuNe. :ok:

Jaba,
Nobody who has any experience with Operations Manuals thinks you are, it really is a nightmare.

Blackhand,
It starts with how we now handle type acceptance, in Part 21, which is dependent on the state that did the original type certification -- we can't change to original certification standard at will. The AFM is part of the original type certification.

Part 138 is straightforward, it requires an Australian aircraft to be operated in compliance with the AFM.
It is a widespread practice for individuals in CASA to demand wholesale changes, particularly to AFM QRH and checklists.

As a matter of some interest, CASA is proposing that the complete Operations Manual for a Limited Category (21.189) be approved, not accepted, meaning what for CASA liability after an accident??

Tootle pip!!

What ever happened to CASA's effort back in 2006 when CASA purchased an OM that was to be used as "training manual" for FOIs.:ok:

Were there to many interpretations on "what," "how," "when," "why," "where," "responsibility," "targets," etc.?:*

As far as checklists go, there are three schools of thought within CASA at present. One requires strict compliance with the AFM checklist and the second requires starting from scratch and develop a flow. The third is a combination of the two. :confused:

What is CASA legal liability if they approve a checklist that is in a sequence that is different from the AFM. :hmm:

If an accident occurs after using the CASA approved checklist, could a legal eagle argue that the flight was not conducted iaw the AFM?:uhoh:

The DAMP template is a crook. No templates for records etc. In the real world, if an operator was to use a manual template produced by the Authority auditing the legislation, only the in-house processes implementing the manual would need auditing. Training completed, records completed and available etc. - not the contents of the document. It should already meet the requirements.:ugh: