CAsA snapped at Townsville some years back.
 

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/r...rmoustache.jpg


Watch out for this dude.

That's statement straight out of the sched 5 program

Cheers

Like I said it's straight out of sched 5. That's unless I've hacked in to the casa site and added it. Mmm maybe I'm cleverer than I thought I was. I'm thinking maybe you need to read the entire document and not just the work sheets. It's all on the casa work sheets

Cheers

The CAR's are held on the AusLii site, not CASA.

Schedule 5 is here:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 5 CASA maintenance schedule

I can't find it either.

yr right expresses a common enough view, that was almost correct until mid-1998, and is most certainly not true and correct now.

yr right, I sincerely suggest you acquaint yourself with the details of how an Australian C.of A, now, is issued against a certificate of validation for the original state of origin Certificate of Airworthiness. We no longer issue ( and have not since late 1998) a unique Australian C.of A against unique Australia design and certification standards. With the enactment of CASR Parts 21-35, previous Australian certification rules were repealed.

That leads to the situation where, for the Australian C.of A to be valid, the aircraft must comply with, and continue to comply with, the ( in the majority of cases, FAA) TCDS. As the original state of origin C.of A includes instructions for continuing airworthiness, those instructions must be complied with, with for the individual aircraft's Australian C.of A to remain valid.

As many people have found out, at great expense, when selling an aircraft back into the US market, it can cost a lot of money to bring an incorrectly maintained Australian aircraft up to the standards of the original C.of A., so that an FAA C.of A can be issued.

yr right, and others can be forgiven for their apparent ignorance, as a good number in the airworthiness areas of CASA don't understand the ramifications of the current law (which, after 15 years, can hardly be called new) so it is probably a "bit of an ask" for those who just blindly follow CASA instructions, rather than actually reading what the regulations actually say, to be any better informed than many CASA AWIs.

The basic lack of knowledge by CASA AWIs is, I presume, the reason these departures from the actual requirements of the law are not picked up on audits.

Tootle pip!!

Well Leadsled
How many aircraft have you sent back to the USA I have forgotten how many ive sent back and yes there is a lot of work that has to be carried out to return one. Why is that. Because it dosent matter a dame what the USA require when the aircraft is on the Aust reg. Its that simple.


How many CofA have you done. Me too many. Yes while the Type Cert is now reconized by CASA there is still a whole lot of work that has to be carried out before you can put the VH on the side of the aircraft.


So as I said it don't mean a dame what other countrys do in regards to maintenance it only matter whats on the LBS its that simple.


Now go look at
CAAP 42B-1(1)


Cheers

yr right,
I am sure you earnestly believe what you post, but yr wrong.

As to the reg quoted, has it ever occurred to you that it is futile to quote a single reg. in isolation, and build an argument out of it.

Do you actually believe that CASA has the legal power to amend the US type certificate of a US certified aircraft. Has it occurred to you that, due to seriously stuffed up Australian regulations, we may have regulations that, if enforced in a literal sense, can cause non-compliance elsewhere.

As to what I might have been involved with removing from the AU register, the most memorable de-mod program cost in excess of AUD$1.0M, obviously it was not a Cessna 172, but it was not a HCRPT aircraft, either.

As I said before, read and understand what the ramifications of current regulations actually are, rather than just regurgitating the same old same old.

Just as a matter of interest, what qualifications are required to produce a "Returns to service" document, such as a MR. Does it need to be a LAME -- under the current regulations.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Creampuff has already explained to you the legal standing of a CAAP.

can you see a common thread occurring here?

years ago the regs were published in a pair of inch thick publications.
plus a few other paper documents.
with these in hand you were certain that when you had read to the end you had read all the laws. there was nothing else that could trip you up.

then CAsA produced the searchable CD. these ran for over 10 years.
CAsA had a subscription service and provided a fully updated copy every few months.
you could very effectively search the entire document set.

now with the supposed improvements in technology the ever increasing volume of guff produced in the name of legislation has been placed on the austlii website.
nowadays you can never be certain that you have found anything.
I gave up trying to read the supposedly improved legislation when I followed a link from the casa website and after reading for half an hour noticed a pane in the right hand side of the screen that said it had been repealed.

if you can't even find what is current legislation these days what hope has anyone got?

like most of the guys I know we no longer give a fcuk what the legislation is.
the air hasn't changed.
the aeroplanes haven't changed.
we'll continue doing it all the same way we always have and CAsA can get fcuked.

I really feel sorry for you guys in industry that have to try to make all this incompetence actually work.

So lead as it won't apply to yr self but when it all goes pear shaped and the old judge looks over his glasses what do you say I don't give a hoot about the caap. If you believe that you are living in a dream world. When it comes to maintenance like I said that you can't understand the lbs is the bible nothing else.
The way any place detremines how they comply to maintenance is the state in which it flys and the type cert holder. This you fail to see. That's why we have a heap of Australian own ADs that Arnt found any place out.

As any lame has a duty of care we are done. It will come. Time very soon that the owner will be ask to sign that they don't won't something done. Funny thing is when your engine or component is sent a way for o/h all the sbs are done

see Clinton's post:

ummmm may be but a court will not look at it like that. That is the problem.
The caap is written with definition's etc and so why did you not follow the caap. so what are you going to say ???????
Its alright for you all to be saying this that and the other but you don't have to deal with this as an Lame dose.
We have a duty of care done and dusted.
The word recommended in a court means it has to be done.
Once you are a Lame that is it your always a lame you cant pick and choose when you wont to be and when you don't.
Now as owners you are responsible for your maintenance on your aircraft.


cheers

I realised just now while I was putting the spanners back in the workshop that I actually have an answer to that question.

I have purchased two vintage aeroplanes for restoration.
one has immaculate paperwork.
years of entries made by wally thompson during the period he was a LAME at kelleberrin is where wally's name first entered my noggin. wally is now a qualified aeronautical engineer.
the books are useless totally because the aircraft is undergoing a ground up strip to components restoration.

the second aeroplane has no log books at all. it has been in australia for 38 years with its nose pushed up against departmental bastardry.
the original owner in england died and the aircraft was purchased from the deceased estate. the papers were thought lost and it was only some time afterwards that it was discovered that the relatives clearing out the estate found the books, thought they were useless and burned them.
this aircraft will also undergo a ground up strip to components restoration.

now lost log books are not the end of the world.
as my old deceased LAME told me log books get lost all the time by relatives when owners die.
you merely start new books. if the life hours are known the book is started with a statement that the hours are believed to be xxxx and the book continues on.
if the hours are not known a log book statement is made to the effect and the book starts at zero. the proviso being that if the hours are ever known the log entries will be corrected.

I described ground up restorations for both the aircraft.
in reality there is no such thing. there is merely maintenance.
at the end of a ground up restoration there is merely the annual maintenance sign off.

the designs for both aircraft are no longer certified so they will return to the air as experimental aircraft. both aircraft have VH registrations assigned to them.

so yes, there are types of aircraft that I would and have bought without logbooks.

yr right,
Firstly, have a look at the preamble of a CAAP, then look at the "court" record.

LAMEs have been taken to the cleaners by CASA AWIs, even though the CAAP was followed.

In one case I know of, the LAME appealed the CASA "administrative action", on the basis that he had complied with the CAAP.

The appeal failed, complying with the CAAP (CASA's own document) was found to not be sufficient to defend a charge of incorrect or inadequate performance of a maintenance task.

Silly (or strange) as the above seems, (and in the above case, I am of the view the CAAP was adequate, and the AWI was very unreasonable, but the AWI position was upheld in the appeal) it is the regulations that count.

Previously, Creampuff has defined the standing of CAAPs, it is as well to understand what he is saying.

Maintenance must be accomplished per. what rules actually say, not what somebody "has been given to understand", "believes", "has been taught", or all the variations used to explain a "knowledge deficiency".

Of course, it doesn't need to be like this, and it is not like this in any other country, of which I have experience and/or knowledge. And that is quite a few.

This completely unreasonable expectation, placed on the the shoulders of people who are tradesmen, is a direct result of the CASA approach to aviation regulation, producing the well know complex, contradictory and impenetrable "law", where "compliance" is all , and confidence in being compliant, by the most conscientious person, just is not possible.

And, of course, "the Australian way" has nothing to do with air safety outcomes.

Tootle pip!!

Refer CAR 41

41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions

(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft
must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the
aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time
included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance
schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

As Yr Right has pointed out, the CAAP is a method of complying with the regulations and rightly suggests that you need to maintain the components as required by the OEM. Including those damn vac pumps, unless the vac pump has wear indicator.

just occasionally you see posts with such clarity it takes your breath away.
clinton and leadsled you pair are peelers!

of course the other side of the coin is that CAsA really are wankers.:mad:

"of course the other side of the coin is that CAsA really are wankers.:mad:"


What a way to run a regulatory system!!!


Damned if you do...damned if you don't!!


The tragedy is the "rule of the regulator" is gathering pace, the rule of law is being thrown aside and these Corrupt assh...les are destroying a whole industry,and I have no idea why? no wonder politics in this country is descending into Farce, the tail is wagging the dog.
What do they hope to gain?, will they all get Knighthoods?, accolades from their peers?? what could possibly be their motive??, when the industry is no more they cease to have a purpose, like a malignant cancer they are destroying the host.

No don't work for CASA never have never will. All we doing is saying whats happening and keep our sorry arses out of the court system and making you as owners a where of your own responsibility's

Intrusion.
 

Clinton,
"Only the right maintenance, carried out in the right way at the right time, means more safety."
Encapsulates the belief of many an ame, but maybe look at this way, as you mentioned, a Vac Pump left alone, can often operate quite safely for many years
And hours without failure, and without replacing it at that 500hr mark you do avoid introducing human error and intrusion into the equation.
But, as has been proven many times, allowing aircraft to be maintained with loose component overhaul time frames in many cases leads to components operating long after they should have been removed and overhauled/replaced,

For the same reason as you suggest some components are renewed-maybe prematurely,

"continue the religious metaphor, merely faith-based maintenance that often turns out to be counter-productive"

This works both ways, some people leave components far longer than designed, in the belief that it will never be a problem or fail, rather than change.

Surely you can see that by enforcing component manufacturers recommendations for component overhaul periods, removes the opinion of the maintainer out of the equation, and also places liability back onto the component
Manufacturer rather the ame.

I've seen a few cables break at the swage fitting, held together with the lock wire, the cables were not worn and looked fine, not corroded, but broken they were. Had they been on a regular replacement schedule-maybe 15yrs, that would probably never have happened, but yes, in changing them, again, you introduce human factors-error and intrusion, but they won't last forever.

I couldn't agree more about the right maintenance at the right time, but unless you can guarantee everyone maintaining those aircraft are singing from the same hym sheet, the only way to ensure things aren't let go until they break is to enforce the manufacturers time frames, take away the decision to do or not to do so to speak.
And the Data, why do you think hartzell 10yr period is enforced, and not (in some cases) McCauley. AD/prop/1
It's not that one is immune from corrosion ect, but not enough of the Data about what was found in the field made it back to the regulator. (My opinion)
But as you suggest, unless there is a big difference in failure rate seen between manufacturers, does it matter, probably you find out when eventually overhauling the McCauley and everything is thrown in the Bin..
Get used to the idea now of Sched. 5 gone. Except if you own a Cub..

Clinton
my post referencing CAR 41 was in response to your question:As has been said before, the Schedule 5 is not to be used in isolation. You as the registered owner/operator can apply for an alternative method of compliance through your local AWI, as long as you can substantiate it with all the real data and science that you have.

Im fully aware of the legal requirements of a Caap is and I have said that before. The proplem is we work under two sets of rules 1 casa and now common law where the prove of quilt is far less.
Ask Terrt Mac at coota how much his legal cost where in regrad to a vac pump.


Now when you get you lic its when you start to learn. Not before. The responsibility that goes with holding an LAME lic cannot be realized until you yourself hold that little book in your hand .


Now I developed this a long time ago its call the Oh **** Manoeuvre



That happens when I say gee we need to replace this part
You say oh do we really need to
I say well no oh are well you be doing the Oh **** Manoeuvre
You say whats that
I say that when your 50 feet above the fence its hot it goes spat spot blat
and you go OH ****
You say mmm we might change that then
I say yeah we should.


Do you know how many times I have to use that saying


cheers
science awaits again

When reading CAR 41, one should also have a quick look at CASR 202.220 and 202.222

honestly you lot all need to learn how to read.
and not insignificantly you need to understand why there is something in legislation.

here is the quote again with my emphasis in red.

(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

you fcukwits have not understood that clause at all.

some historical background that may or may not be relevant.
in perth the head of the surf life saving organisation at the time was a member of our club of pilot owners. he tried to get approval for the club members to donate their time with the surf life saving clubs paying the fuel cost to mount shark patrols along the perth beaches.
in perth there is a popular "city and beaches" vfr lane along the coast that many members fly along for the views on a regular basis.
"why not organise them to look out for sharks while they fly?" was the motivator.
CAsA refused to allow private pilots to fly the shark patrols "because of the uncertain nature of the maintenance".
I know all this because I was an alphabet office bearer doing most of the message passing at the time.

so if you understand the import of my red emphasis the paragraph means something entirely different from what you have been blathering on about.

btw W8 does NOT WORK FOR CAsA.

If you are intimating that "Operations" in Para 41 do not include Private Operations, then you are the one misunderstanding the regulations.
I'm sure it would have been because they did not have an AOC for airwork, covering survey tasks.

mmmmm me thinks it was a casa hit and run to see what is known pmsl

I think what you have forgotten is that aircraft maintenance is based on preventive maintenance and not just changing parts when things break. Now don't forget that if there is an accident who sues who and how is the sued person going to be. So at the end of the day I don't get paid enough to do **** shoddy work and let stuff go with the option of court over my head and why should any lame have to have that as we'll. basically I'm sorry to say if you can't afford to maintain your aircraft to a level that now more than ever is higher than it's ever been sell it and just hire it.
That's the bigger peoplem now being able to afford everything and sadly most people can't

Cheers

I service my dry vac pump myself. truly I do.

in 10 years it hasn't shown any wear at all.

I did get a guilty feeling once about servicing my vac pump and making a few new parts in it so I bought an unmodified yellow tagged one and put it on the aircraft.

it failed in exactly the same way as the first one. so I made the necessary replacement parts for that one as well. while I was doing this I put the original one back into service.

I love dry vac pumps. they are a nifty little device. with my periodic servicing my two dry vac pumps will most assuredly do me for the rest of my life.

....I know, not what you wanted to hear :E:E:E

Clinton,
Why do you say that CAR 41 doesn't require components to be maintained in accordance with OEM of aircraft or component. I see no ambiguity W8 has a novel method of getting around a simple maintenance task, by carrying out a complex dismantling, repair and reassembly of a carbon vaned pump.
WOuld this not be a higher risk factor of human error?
What does your MRO think of your maintenance, or are you certifying for maintenance done?

It is above my pay level to dwell on the moral and ethical issues of changing or not changing a Vac pump. To be released on an MR this component has to be maintained IAW OEM - no further corrospondence entered into.

….getting…sucked…back….into….vortex….of….pointless….circular ity …and Australian GA....aarrrggghh...

Schedule 5 is a maintenance schedule in terms of CAR 41. Indeed, it’s “the CASA maintenance schedule”.

That’s the point.

The perpetual confusion is about whether Schedule 5 mandates the replacement/overhaul of components at the times provided in the MMM. The only 'definitive' statement on that subject is in an advisory publication, which itself says is not definitive...




NO BUT THE COURTS DECIDE AND ALREADY HAVE YOU MUST DO IT .


Why should it be a lame make the decision an have to were the damage to his hers lic and job. Simple answer is the owner says no I don't wont it done and signs the log book to say that or you close the machine and push it out side and let someone else do it.


Cheers

For those who have not read this thread, I can assume they have been, in the past, mis-informed, but those that have now done so, are un-informed. (apologies to Mark Twain for bastardising his quote).


I concur with LeadSled and Creampuff. Perhaps their offerings should be heeded. Both are aware of my intimate knowledge of schedule 4, as it was then, and how something simple became so convoluted and subsequently mutated into something that nobody fully understands and drives normal people to despair.


And while this fire burns, Nero fiddles!

What interest would CASA have in being definitive?

Clinton,
You either have the English Comprehension of a dead ferret or are being purposely obtuse.
The CAR states emphatically that component maintenance is to be included.

To coin a famous former CASA Lawyer. The CAR says what it means and means what it says.

And a CAAP is just a magazine article.

If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal.

If in doubt refer above.

If the courts get it wrong, and they do at times, appeal


And who is left holding the bill ?


And why should that person have too ?


Because some owner dosnt wont it done, because they think it dose not have to our because they cant afford to or what ever reason, we will pass it on to maintenance org or lame she be right then.


Cheers

As it stands now even if you choose not to believe it you have to SB and life limited component's as per the M/M.


More and more shops are demanding this as they are forced to by CASA its not the shop its Casa and more importantly will be your insurance policy will be U/S if you don't but then you try and sue the shop but they have a signed letter stating your the owner and you didn't wont them done.


There is nothing wrong with sched 5. As ive said its a victim of its own success and now casa are bring it back into line it was fine when it was supported by the Aust ADs but now they gone or going.


So now you will have to run what the manufacturer wonted, you got away with it for how long now.


At the end of the day the shop insurance is also going to play a huge roll as it does now with on condition engines a lot of shop wont and cant release them. And an on condition engine MUST have its component o/h at there correct time as well as they are NOT on condition only the core of the engine is


Its time you all stepped up to the mark the time has come its not 1990 any more sorry


Cheers

Folks,
More urban myths.

During a previous period of controversy over AD/ENG/4, which was being stoutly opposed by a number of maintenance providers, ( all on SAFETY grounds, of course, what happens in the rest of the world will not work in Australia) on the basis that their English comprehension did not extend to understanding the difference between Manufacturer's RECOMMENDED TBO, and the somewhat shorter term, TBO, "recommended" being a very long word, there was considerable effort made to rope in the various insurers.

A well known national representative organisation approached ALL the then providers of Hangar Keepers policies, and quizzed them about placing limitations on policies re. releasing aircraft that had engines over Manufacturers RECOMMENDED TBO. ie: the insurance underwriter placing a limitation on a policyholder using AD/ENG/4 on behalf of a Registered Operator customer.

The short answer was NO!. They all said that CASA requirements (however expressed) had to be complied with, that was it. In fact, in this area, they were reluctant to place custom conditions on individual policies at the request of the buyer of the policy.

Tootle pip!!

Gee lead you must have a different shop to the rest off us.
One of the things is if they won't to release an engine on condition it is the lame that take the responsabity of that. I for one won't do it and there are a lot of lames that won't ethier. Next is that the word recommend via the court says you must. Casa will not give you a definitionon the word how ever. I have tried.

Cheers

yr right,

I just stick to the facts, it is as easy as that.

Prove it, show us an excerpt from a policy.

I don't think you even understand that it is the Registered Operator who is ultimately legally responsible for the completion of maintenance and the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, not a/the LAME.

There is no issue with the definition of "manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul", that is simple and plain English and is accepted by the courts.

A reasonably useful working policy in Australian aviation is:

Tootle pip!!

PS: Do you understand that is is legally possible for an aircraft to be "signed out" without the involvement of an AME/LAME anywhere in the process?

An aircraft may be release by someone other than an LAME ONLY IF ALL THE CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN SIGNED ON INSPECTION. SO YES I DO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .
HOW EVER THAT PERSON MUST HOLD AN APPROVAL FROM CASA TO DO IT. HE OR SHE IS ONLY SIGNING TO SAY THAT THE PAPER WORK IS COMPETED AND HOLDS NO APPROVAL TO SIGN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORK SHEETS


Cheers

yr right,

Once again, as we have come to expect, you avoid the main issue.

Show us an example of where a Hangar Keepers (or similar) insurance policy limits the application of AD/ENG/4 and prohibits the policy holder's staff from signing out an aircraft if an engine is past Manufacturers Recommended TBO.

This nonsense is only an issue in Australia, I am mystified as to why engines in Australia are apparently so mush less reliable, compared to US/CA/NZ etc., that they must be limited to a figure that is a "recommendation", without regard to the service condition of the engine.

Is it substandard maintenance by CASA licensed LAMEs like yr right, and/or are the general run of Australian pilots unable to demonstrate adequate engine handling ability, so that maximum engine life is achieved.?

Tootle pip!!