|
You may want to look at your engine overhauls, commercial ops that is although no one can say if and/or when may happen. |
Creampuff
That was the best I could get out of them. Reading between the lines I would say that On Condition engines for commercial operations of all kinds will disappear under 119/135/136/137. As for the private operations, no one really cares if you kill yourself and your family, no implications for CASA, ATSB nor for the CAR30 Workshop that signs you out with your OC heap of poo. Sunfish I have passed your claims about CASA onto John Mac for comment. Be ready to provide evidence please. Cheers |
Is that meany awi or meany foi???
|
UITA,
Read and digest the new regs mate, if you can't see the writing on the wall, hopefully you aren't involved in real aviation. Or are you part of Kharons so called cricket team that won't come out and play. And no. I eat AWIs for breakfast, and FOIs are beyond my remit. |
owen,
Can you point to me where, in AD/ENG/4 you can use engines on condition, now, for Charter or RPT. I don't see "commercial operations" under 119/135/136 being any different to the present situation, Part 137, Ag, is a different matter. As far as I know, the long and successful history of life extension programs for Charter and RPT piston engines have been ignored and have all been extinguished. Tootle pip!! |
There are commercial operations other than charter and RPT as you well know.
|
Owen, take it from me that there was a strong recommendation that members are not to criticise CASA because it would "prejudice the relationship". Someone else may decide to give you a quote. I won't.
And furthermore Owen, are you incensed because you believe CASA is above criticism, or are you incensed because of a sense of shame that someone would feel it necessary to caution their members because they are personally afraid of the regulators reaction? Go ask AMROBA about their meeting. Do you think anyone else wants a repeat? And furthermore, as far as I can tell, the common factor in some removals of AOC's ( Polar, Barrier and maybe others) is a pre existing complaint about the conduct of individual CASA staff. Can we be forgiven for thinking that the conduct of your staff, including, allegedly, that of your CEO at the AMROBA meeting, suggests you are bullies? And how dare you make a personal threat aimed at me? I have passed your claims about CASA onto John Mac for comment. Be ready to provide evidence |
Stop being so precious Sunfish.
I made no threats to you, simply asked if you can provide evidence. FFS, even my manager wants to go softly softly, sometimes that does not work. Know the regulations and pick your fights You and your circle group have beaten to death your view that every organisation shut down were the good guys. Move on mate, the modern world beckons you Cheers |
For a CASA stooge the name Owen Meany is such a good choice, golden.
|
There are commercial operations other than charter and RPT as you well know. As previously suggested to you, one again I suggest you develop a more nuanced understanding of our present and draft future regulations. Then, an only then, might you develop some understanding of the limitations of a generic expression such as "commercial" operations. I must say I agree with T28D, there is something very Freudian about your choice of handles. Tootle pip!! PS: Sunfish, Follow the money, there is more than simple old fashioned bullying that helps keep the various alphabet soup organisations quiet. In Dick and Boyd's time, part of the AOPA statement of principles was:" Pay your own way and have your own say". AOPA was entirely financed by members' funds and profit from the magazine. Back in the '90s, AOPA got things done by talking a political path, not unsuccessfully brown-nosing the bureaucrats. A number of successful campaigns to have dis-allowance motions pushed through had a salutary effect in CASA. The successful campaign against fixed ELT (with their 95% proven failure rate) legislation saved owners (in then dollars) around $16M. Just two examples. |
Be that as it may, owen, you said that “no one can say if and/or when [changes to commercial aircraft engine overhaul regulatory requirements] may happen”. So, what strategic decisions should commercial operators make?
Your narrow mind arising from your narrow experience (I’m guessing the same year or two, twenty times over) is showing here: As for the private operations, no one really cares if you kill yourself and your family, no implications for CASA, ATSB nor for the CAR30 Workshop that signs you out with your OC heap of poo. They’ll all be killed! It will be all the regulator’s fault! The regulator must require someone to fiddle with aircraft bits, constantly, to improve their reliability! No aircraft component could possibly be reliable unless the likes of owen are f*cking around with them, constantly, and someone from the regulator is constantly checking that the likes of owen have been f*cking around with them, constantly. :yuk: |
“Never confuse faith, or belief—of any kind—with something even remotely intellectual.” Just what does the above statement have to do with the price of fish on Fridays, or anything in this thread. I am really getting quite concerned about you, are you actually channeling John Irving and his "Prayer for Owen Meany". You didn't even get the spelling correct, when you adopted the persona?? That being the case, now I am not so surprised at you "understanding" of basic aviation regulations. <http://www.corpus-delicti.com/barb/owenmean.html> I certainly hope you do not actually have anything to do with matters operational and/or continuing airworthiness with actual aircraft. Tootle pip!! |
I see again and again criticism of CASA's performance at the AMROBA meeting, I have heard through various attendees that what was said before CASA arrived and after is not quite what is reported here. I think someone mentioned that a transcript would be posted, where is it?
|
By the way, word is that new maintenance regs aren't likely till 2015 and even then will have around a 3 year time frame for compliance.
|
I am actually a 15 year old model aircraft fabricator with nothing better to do than sniff glue and post on aviation forums
|
Ah Owen, thats a start, the biggest hurdle is actually accepting you have a problem.
There are lots of organisations out there that can provide you with assistance. |
Know the regulations CAO 100.5 - 2013 has been repealed/ceased as of 2 August. AD/RAD/43 cancelled AD/INST/8 cancelled AD/INST/9 cancelled CAO 108.56 repealed (cancelled) |
The one's today or the one's tomorrow??:ugh: or maybe yesterday? "If you care about something, you have to protect it – If you’re lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it.” Cheers |
casa and atsb just do not get it!!!!!!!!!
Here is casa's NFRM for parts of 100.5. Note the changes where casa blames the industry. Where was casa in this, if the matter is so bad. There is no evidence I have seen which shows near misses in regulated airspace.
Oh, by the way, the last time that I looked, all aircraft have a pitot system!! Final Rule Making 1. Background 1.1 The primary method used by pilots to monitor and maintain a desired altitude is with a barometric altimeter. It works by measuring ambient air pressure (static pressure) and providing a display to the pilot in units of height. These instruments, whether they are aneroid based or solid state, need to be checked on a regular basis to ensure that what is being presented to the pilot is accurate. This is particularly critical during approach and departures that have terrain obstacles in close proximity. 1.2 AD/INST/8 Amdt 4 and AD/INST/9 Amdt 6 formerly required either:
1.4 Conflicting maintenance standards that are defined for aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) effectively allowed aircraft with altimeters maintained to different standards to operate in the same airspace which, in the worst case scenario, could result in a loss of separation between the two aircraft. 1.5 With the introduction of Wide Area Multilateration systems into the Sydney metropolitan area as well as large areas of Tasmania it is essential that accurate altitude information is broadcast, via the Mode C transponder, for Air Traffic Control purposes. This would apply to any aircraft transmitting Mode C information regardless of operation under either the VFR or IFR. 1.6 An unintended consequence of allowing a choice of actions within the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) had been the interpretation that, with opting to do the pressure altimeter check, other aircraft instruments and instrument systems did not have to be maintained. This may have resulted in the accuracy of critical aircraft instruments degrading. |
Oh, by the way, the last time that I looked, all aircraft have a pitot system!!
REALLY, all Tiger Moths have pitot ??? The Tipsy Nipper ???? Camel ??? Smarter statement might be , All commercial aircraft have pitot systems. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.