And get into trouble for committing maintenance when not approved to do so.
Sorry Sir, but I have not been trained and issued with a Maintenance Authority for that procedure and it outside Schedule 8.

Schedule 8, by inference, allows removal by the pilot of non structural cover plates and fairings since this task is incidental to the others specfied (see item 16 in CAP 42).


To go back to Dash 8's original question, I would have thought that any Inspection involving entry to an aircraft by a CASA operative, authorised or not, in the absence of the owner or person responsible for the aircraft, had better be followed by:

(a) The written notification, left either in the aircraft or some other convenient location, containg the name, position, date , time and purpose of the inspection together with details of anything removed, or the result of the inspection.

(b) A follow up phone call or email if practicable.

Furthermore, the only "inspection" I can think that could reasonably be made by CASA would be to:

(1) Check that the aircraft is properly immobilised as required by law.

(2) Examine either for a leak or an apparent external defect.

If they want to see the maintenace release or other documentation they will be out of luck if its my aircraft because when travelling I always take all of it to the motel for security and the aircraft is locked anyway.

There are laws against tampering or interfering with an aircraft and if you ain't authorised that is what you are doing whoever you think you are.

casa and the future - responsibility for their actions
 

That's it in a nutshell Sunny!!

Fly, Operate, and Maintain your aircraft in accordance with the rules and you won't have to worry about what casa's powers are

Folks,
The words of the ultimate naive babe in the woods.

Tnuc, Haven't you noticed the multiple threads, over a long period of time, about the difficulty of deciding what the regulations actually mean, what actions are required, and the ever shifting sands of CASA individuals interpretations of what the rules require, including a comprehensive knowledge of all the Legislative Instruments that alter the meaning and/or application of individual regulations.

I assume you must believe these many thousands of posts are all by individuals who are too dumb to have you comprehensive, definitive and unchallengeable knowledge.

Just to try that knowledge, please let us all know exactly what flight deck documentation must be carried for a VFR flight ---- in comprehensive detail, with legislative references.

Even Mr. McCormick has made public statements about the use of Legislative Instruments where the rules don't work/fit.

Tootle pip!!

What really hurts is when your aircraft gets grounded by an ex friend who has been working for the same company as I have been and suddenly gets a job with CASA. Next thing so called friend goes out of his way to inspect my aircraft in someone else's hangar me not being there so i receive latter of indefinate grounding due to not displaying Avgas only sticker next to fuel cap. Mind you he conducted my IFR renewal in same aircraft only months before he got his new appointment with no sticker near fuel cap.
It's just my experience with Gestapo that's all. I am still p###ed off.

So is a missing avgas sticker an indefinite grounding? Wouldn't you just replace said sticker and you're good to go?

I get frustrated with some CASA people with the classic "do as I say and not as I do" philosophy when they are as crooked as a crankshaft.

Missing decal would require rectification before next flight, not indefinite grounding.

A pilot, in theory, can remove non-structural covers from an airframe.

However also in the CAAP;

If the pilot works for an AOC Holder, this gotcha puts a requirement on the AOC holder to ensure that a pilot has been trained in the identification of non-structural covers, the use of the correct tools, the correct fitment of the cover and the required torque of the fasteners holding the inspection plate.

So if the pilot has not completed the training required for the above, the pilot should refer the CASA Official to the AOC Holder.

The missing avgas sticker was just one of the small defects he found but it had prompted a full audit which led to grounding.
The point I was trying to make that he helped himself to sniff around my aircraft without my consent because the hangar door happened to be open at the time. I have only found out when I have received the letter in the mail.:ugh::mad:

sms777 - Really, you have no grounds for complaint. The bloke was carrying out his job which authorises him to inspect aircraft in an aviation environment where the aircraft can be put into the air at any time.

It's no different to you driving your car on a public road and being pulled up and stickered by the cops for a mechanical fault. By driving on a public road, you are essentially putting yourself under the authority and discretion of traffic police.

The same thing applies if I operate a workshop with employees. An authorised Govt safety inspector can arrive at any time and demand to inspect any machinery that requires a safety inspection, such as an air compressor.

If I refuse him entry, he can get a warrant to enter my premises. I can tell him now it not a convenient time and try to arrange an inspection at a more convenient time - but he still has the authority to enter and inspect equipment he is authorised to inspect.

By leaving your aircraft in a hangar on a location defined as an aviation location, you are putting your aircraft up for inspection at any time, just as your car is liable for inspection at any time on a public road.

You are talking about two different things here.

The scenario quoted is akin to the police turning up to your house whilst you are away entering without a warrant and defecting your car whilst it sits in the garage then as a result impounding your car.

That is very different from being pulled over on the side of the road whilst out driving.

Same with CASA. The question being raised here is does CASA have the right to enter a locked hangar and search and defect aircraft whilst in there?
I would highly doubt it.

You could for example realise that the aircraft is defective so therefore leave it in the hangar whilst waiting for parts (and/or sticker in this case)

If you had a private airport for example there is no way they could enter and search without going to a judge and showing reasonable cause.

So for CASA to start entering and searching without a court order anywhere is a very big call on their behalf.

The problem involves the legal concepts of materiality and proportionate response which seem to be unknown to CASA

You think they should only be allowed to pull you over whilst flying? :confused:

So no clear idea what they can and cant??
Hypothetically, can CASA legally break into a hanger, jemmy an aircrafts door lock breaking the lock, remove documents and copy them, then leave the hanger wide open to whoever wants to enter and steal, tell no one and deny they were ever there, until the RCA turns???and there's no way they could have gained the information without breaking in, Then still deny they committed larceny.
It happened!!
Same powers as Customs, if you have anything to do with aviation they can, at will, without judicial approval, kick your front door in, terrorise your family while they ransack your home, and leave without so much as a sorry.
These are the powers they have endowed themselves with.

Well they certainly can't just go on fishing expeditions in hangars.

If an inspector from any Govt organisation broke into my private building on my private property, then I would have him rightfully charged with breaking and entering.
The fact that Police have to obtain a search warrant to search private property shows that to enter and search private property in an unauthorised manner is trespassing - and damage to private property is criminal damage, no matter who you are.
However, public or designated areas are different to private property, and different laws apply. "Designated areas" are typically aviation centres for pilots and aircraft owners, and workplaces for industry.

CASA inspectors are no different to OH&S inspectors. They are empowered by legislation to conduct inspections, in areas where they consider the laws they are employed to uphold are perhaps being broken.
However, in all situations, "reasonable" is the word used, and "reasonable" behaviour is expected.

Breaking into premises without authority (i.e. - no warrant) and conducting inspections outside reasonable hours does not fall under the category of "reasonable" behaviour.
Damage to another persons property, even under a claim of "investigation", is completely unacceptable, and most certainly a breach of law.

I am reading through the Civil Aviation Act (1988) at the moment.

For an Investigator to enter the premises they need;
- Consent.
- Warrant.

For an aircraft;
The investigator may require the person apparently in control of the aircraft, vessel or vehicle to do either or both of the following;
- detain the aircraft, for a reasonable time.
- to ensure that the aircraft is undisturbed.

They can't even make you answer questions without a warrant.

Be careful because if you want to be a smart ass they can get a warrant over the phone pretty easily and I am sure they are always waiting for the next Johnnie Corchran (OJ's Lawyer)

I would suggest that this entire discussion is further evidence of CASA being totally off the trolley.

how on earth such behaviour results in safety is totally beyond me.

That's right CASA should have no rights to enforce the regulations...
It's amazing how there is always more to the story then what you first here from some one complaining isn't it.