Thunderbird. You say the compass check is not required under the regulation however my maintenance provider says it is.

I use John Cameron Aviation at Bankstown. I have always found them reputable.

Can anyone throw more light on the requirement ?

Hi Dick
Compass swing is two yearly mandatory requirement.
I would listen to the folk at JC Aviation, they are very reputable.

Though I believe there is some tolerance in the NZ rules allowing the compass swing (and some other checks) to be deferred for a defined period of time to align with other mandatory maintenance.

Yes there can be a 10% tolerance have it done 10% before or after. The 10% can be airframe or calendar depending on which method is used for determining the maintenance period.

So the CAA bureaucrats in New Zealand have also decided that they need to have more expensive regulations than the USA.

Those stupid Americans. How did they ever get to the moon. Must have been a fluke.

AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN AWB 34-008 Issue : 1 Calibration of Compasses Date : 22 January 2007
Applicability
1.1 This Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) is applicable to all aircraft and is intended to assist with calibrating and compensating aircraft magnetic compasses and provides data on the maximum allowable deviations enabling the compass to be maintained to its type design.
2.1 The objective of this AWB is to establish the minimum standard of maintenance considered necessary to ensure the accuracy of an aircraft compass system.
2.2 This AWB provides information for the calibration of direct reading and remote reading magnetic compasses. Alternative standards may be used provided they can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety.


There is no mention of compass in CAO100.5. CASA schedule 5 only mentions a compass inspection. The AWB above says 24 monthly calibration should be carried out.


So, Dick, para 2.2 gives you an out. Just demonstrate the equivalent level of safety given by the US system and tell your maintenance organization to stop doing the calibrations.

I am sure it was Dick

Why is everybody fixated on the compass, what about the other parts of 100.5 :confused:

The ridiculous thing is the calibration card will say "pitot heat on" or some such.

And yet the majority of VFR aircraft flying around have it switched off.

Next thing we know, CASA FOIs will be ensuring that pilots are turning on the pitot heat momentarily to get an accurate reading from the compass.

Idiots.

If the compass is unreliable or has bubbles or isn't accurate, pilot endorses the MR and it gets fixed. End of story.

Will CASA not be satisfied until there's no GA aircraft left in Australia?

So Dick, when we find ourselves coming in to the same uncontrolled airport, me in my quite fast, (I think) RV7 and you in what ever you choose to be flying that particular day, you are more than happy for me to be coming from a direction that I am not sure of. at an altitude that I have no idea of, and at a speed that could be anything. (Now I don't want you winging of my incorrect estimate of arrival.) Cant wait to meet you at that airport Dick :ugh:

Now that has to be one of the funniest things I have EVER read on PPrune. That is a stupid statement. Ask ANY LAME about how many faults are actually written up. HaHaHa.......

Hmmm... perhaps if Mr smith thinks a compass calibration is a pointless rort and a waste of money he should just think of it as a 'compass tax' and he will feel all goodly about it... sorta like the pointless waste of money carbon tax he spruiks..:)

Dick Smith: I Was Gutless Over Carbon Tax Ads











.

Blatant hyperbole. Spoken like a true scaremonger. It's folks like you that GA in Australia can thank for thousands of pages of regs, tens of thousands of pages of CAOs and the same in MOSs.

You can't work out your orientation to an aerodrome without a calibrated compass? Really?

No idea of altitude? Really? No idea?

At a speed that could be anything? Really? Anything?

Please: Save us, CASA. We need more laws to prevent this from happening. :rolleyes:

Shows how much some of the people actually operating the aircraft care if something works or not.

I hear you Creampuff, but I am appropriately licensed to fly my aircraft and I could be at an airport near you, ( Ok not near you coz you are awsome) but I could be near Dick. The point is not everybody is as awesome as you flying without instruments.
Also, if you took that literally, then you are truly, shall we say, strange.

Oh come on, if you're not using a GPS, or an Ipad with Ozrunways or Nav plan, or some other program, or a hand held GPS, then you're relying on century old technology.

It's a fundamental skill I'm told. So is fire starting, but who doesn't use a lighter or match? I can walk where I'm going, but why would I? I can drive! Everyone pretends they are some type of navigational God, deftly calculating ETA against airspeed, ground speed, and skin friction. But that's crap.

Old style navigation is stressful, needlessly difficult today, and one stands an excellent chance of getting lost. Before everyone decries falling standards and crap training, let me volunteer, the training I paid good money for was crap, and my navigation is Sh!it. Not because I want it to be, but a perfect compass won't help at all.

Talking with a CASA guy a few years back they were hoping to include Compasses in CAO 100.5 . Until then it was in an AWB.

CAO 100.6 was repealed in 2007.

So why mandatory every two years? . Surely if servicable you would just use until proven defective. Unless dictated by manufacturer or SOM

Happy to be proven wrong

Err, How do you do that???

So get CASA to save aircraft owners like Dick Smith these ridiculous costs, and instead get them to spend their time and money on enforcing the penalties on pilots for not recording aircraft defects.

Those pilots you refer to are wilfully breaking the law.

Perhaps if that culture didn't exist, there wouldn't be ridiculous inspection costs on aircraft owners.

In fact, if it weren't for CASA and these ridiculous expenses, perhaps aircraft owners could afford a new aircraft and their 40 year old c172 could be sent to the scrap heap where it belongs.

I just report the facts.
Fact 1: "Compass" does not get a mention in CAO 100.5. This CAO is where all other instrument checks get a mention.
Fact 2. CAO 108.6 regarding compass calibration was repealed (cancelled) in 2007.
Civil Aviation Order 108.6 Repeal Order 2007
which says "The Order is repealed as it is no longer required."
Fact 3. AWB 34-008 came in in 2007 and, while describing in good detail, what a compass calibration should be, is not a regulation or an order, it is advisory.
Fact 4 to support fact 3:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Airworthiness bulletins
An Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) is issued to inform the aviation public, in a systematic way, of essential information not considered mandatory.

So CASA deliberately moved compass checks from mandatory to advisory, in 2007.

I'd suggest if any maintenance facility, or anyone for that matter, is stating categorically that something is mandatory, that's fine, just politely ask them to educate you, and show you where it says that in the regs. (Then go check if that reg still exists!)

My point is, don't believe everything you are told, just because it was told by a well respected party. Pop over to comlaw and check the facts, they are all there, gratis.
Some time back, I saw in a LAMEs field note book, CAO 108.6. I had to advise him that his notes were stale, as I knew 108.6 had gone long ago. He did not know this. I sent him all the info, and he was grateful.

To close, I don't make the lemonade, I just sell it.:E

Fascinating. On Monday I will go back to Cameron's and see what they say.

Watch this space!

Crap 172
 

My 1961 crap 172 is in better condition than when it left the factory thank you. And it still does the job better and more cost effectively than a lot of the "modern" junk sold as aircraft today. Aerodynamics hasn't changed and materials science has crawled forward somewhat. What has made huge advances is electronics. My ipad combined with two GPS, (Dynon EFIS, not for use just ornamental, the most accurate and reliable instrument in the aircraft) and backed up by an iphone makes my 172 a highly effective tool.


Dick stop whinging about it costing you $1000 to do a compass swing and making out that you care about everyone else getting stung for it. First world problems. Put the chopper on one of those specially constructed trailers that litter airstrips around the country and push it around on that.

As for CAO 100.5 blah blah put in a foxtel screen with new plumbing and tell the designers to make sure it can cross calibrate itself given they just sodomised you for tens of thousands of dollars for a product that dynon can make for one tenth of the price. For most fixed wing owners the compass swing is a small part of of the avionics calibration, which in my opinion is a valid maintenance requirement. If the technology had kept up it would be self calibrating as opposed to having to pay a human to do it.

Aviation is an extortion racket from head to toe and its time to pay the piper.

Thunderbird Five didn't I just say that ??



Arnold E
I mean obvious defects like bubbles , I find they are lucky to last 4 years in a hot environment anyway.

Oracle1
Are you saying do a compass swing on a big lump of metal ??

Or..... Get the rules/AWB's changed so that a GPS system is mandatory. Then you don't need a compass.

Everyone is spouting off about how everyone carries a GPS these days and how they are much more accurate, and they are, but they are not MANDATORY in most circumstances. If you want to ditch the compass forever, get the GPS loaded on to your aircraft as basic equipment in the paperwork and use that as an alternative means of compliance for the compass compensation.

As far as cost for a compass swing, for a wheeled helo, it is only the pilot and mechanics time. As it is a maintenance run, it is not logged on the machine. Not where I come from anyway. Skids are different of course ;)

You can also air swing a compass, flying on the cardinals and working out your errors. That is how a lot of the big aircraft do it. An extended circuit will do it. We used to do it during training with a mech on board to take the readings while the crew flew an extended circuit (long time ago of course!).

Arnold

If you planned your flight properly, and navigated properly, you'd know your heading and track, within a couple of degrees, and you'd know your groundspeed within a couple of knots, absent a compass and absent any GPSs.

If you checked the accuracy of your altimeter/s, in accordance with AIP, at the commencement of your flight, you'd have a good idea of the accuracy of the reading/s. If you have a transponder with Mode C, you can confirm the accuracy of the reading/s at altitude.

If you couldn't manage to do a few circuits in your RV7, without an airspeed indicator, you don't know your aircraft well enough.

I'll say it again: It's not about the desirability of serviceable and accurate instruments. It's about the presumption of innate incompetence and criminality of Australians, mixed with scaremongering that plays on the fears of ignorant punters, that has produced the regulatory Frankenstein destroying GA.

The experiment has been run in the USA and the results are in: The Australian approach is a complete overkill (literally).

How articulate. Sums up the entire nation, not just aviation.

Unfortunately GNSS units still are subject to RAIM outages so whilst this is the case I do not think that CASA will allow it to replace the magnetic compass no matter how much more accurate GNSS units are.

For this to be the case you would have to be certain that your altitude encoder, which gets its information from the same static source as your altimeter, is reading correctly. If there is an issue with the static pressure system both your altimeter and altitude encoder will be in error and the mode C readout to ATC isn't going tell you that. Whether or not a big enough discrepancy would result from this issue to cause any real dramas is another story if your altimeter was within tolerance prior to departure.

So when I report to Departures, "Turning right, climbing to 7,500', passing 3,300'", the dudes in ATC aren't checking the accuracy of the Mode C info?

C'mon. This is like CASA Avmed arguing that CVD creates reals risks.

They are checking that there is no discrepancy between what your seeing on your altimeter and what they are seeing from your altitude encoder. As I said before, if there is an issue with your static system this will affect both (quite possibly by the same value).

Talking about the static system when the topic is about instrument calibration is a bit of a thread drift and I apologise for that.

Creampuff is talking a lot of sense on this thread. So long as flying is an outdoors activity these instruments really should just be confirming what you already know. I dont see why (for vfr at least) they cant be on condition items.

If your situational awareness is so suspect that you cant detect gross errors in a mag compass you really need to question your proficiency.

PS. Sorry about the nylocks Hasher, Dynon supplies em as standard!

As I have posted earlier, the above statement may not necessarily be accurate. Remember I said I found a FACTORY BUILT aircraft with the encoder hooked up to the pitot line. This paticular aircraft had not flown in controlled airspace. In any case I have seen encoders many hundreds of feet out of cal. when tested.

Correct, I have not got anywhere near enough hours on it yet to safely do circuits without an asi. (Actually not quite true coz I do have a reserve lift (AOA) indicator).:)

Oh the humanity!

Clearly Australia needs more mandatory maintenance. More mandatory maintenance must mean more safety.

Yeah, Ok you win.:) Lets not have any mandatory instrument maintenance at all and save ourselves $$$$$.

As I have said, I personally believe that the 100.5 checks which does not include a compass swing to be one of the few sensible checks that CASA has introduced,
especially for aircraft being flown by multiple people who may be unfamiliar with that particular aircraft. I concede that privately owned and flown only
by one pilot, not so much necessarily,......maybe. I have however found some right dogs whilst doing these test on aircraft of the latter category.
However,as I said, you win.

Trailers
 

Not that hard to make something non ferrous if you are doing lots of chopper compass swings. My point is the chopper should be able to be manipulated without running the engine.

AWB 34-008 details the compass calibration requirements of aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness.
I note that it stipulates engine(s) running and all systems operational.

How does that compare with doing it on a non ferrous trolley and engines off?

Of interest to Dick Smith is the paragraph that allows you to have a system of maintenance that stipulates a different elapsed time for compass swing.

I note Arnold E has carried put the "new' 100.5 requirements on light aircraft, the price your compatriots are charging is outrageous, especially out here in the bush. Nearly $6000 all up to get two light helis done, took less than a day.

I didn't say that there shouldn't be any mandatory instrument maintenance. :=

This is why the GA community in Australia is such easy pickings for the regulator. Very few people in it are able to have a rational discussion, based on facts and data.

In Context
 

Read my original post and put it context. I don't care about how you arrive at a compass swing the instrument is an inaccurate relic. Do we need to alter engine RPM and allow for changing alternator fields? Do you want to take it to that level? The fact that all these factors need to be considered confirm its unsuitability compared to modern electronics. Modern electronics cross calibrate, expending any energy on compasses is just pissing money against the wall.

Ask yourself honestly, when was the last time you actually used the compass as a primary means of navigation?

Given today's technology the avionics should self calibrate.

CAO 100.5
 

Dick,

By less prescriptive I guess you are referring to the NZ allowance for acceptable means of compliance and the following exemption from Canada:

"(b) The annual calibration requirement of (a) does not apply to an aircraft operating under an air operator certificate, or to any large or turbine-powered pressurized aircraft, where:

(i) the aircraft is equipped with two independent stabilized magnetic direction indicators in addition to the non-stabilized direct reading magnetic direction indicator; and"

(ii) a procedure for monitoring and recording the performance of the magnetic direction-indicators is detailed in the flight training unit's, or in the air operator's approved maintenance control manual approved pursuant to CAR 406 and CAR 706 respectively."


I fail to see how this is less prescriptive than the exemption requirements of CAO100.5:

"exempted aircraft:
means an aircraft with an approved system of maintenance
(SOM) under regulation 42M of CAR 1988, or with a maintenance schedule under regulation 41 of CAR 1988, but only if the SOM or the schedule incorporates instructions for the continuing airworthiness of instruments and instrument systems fitted to the aircraft that would otherwise be subject to the additional maintenance requirements set out in clauses 2 to 6 of this Appendix."


Do I work for CASA? NO.
Have I ever worked for CASA? NO.
Can you say the same?


Surely a well supported industry petition (there are plenty of people here who would submit) with evidence (costs you are claiming) to have the wording a CAO100.5 amended to require the checks at the first Maintenance Release issue after the date of expiry (much like weight and balance checks) would be a more valuable use of your considerable financial and political clout than complaining on a public forum.

This would ensure the checks were only done during times when a LAME(and in the case of helicopters a pilot) was required anyway and a safety case should not be too hard to build for this.

Yes indeed Oracle, you can certify for the compass swing no matter how it is done, or whether it is correct or not, or conforms to the AWB or not. It's your licence.

I don't believe that I have been irrational. I agreed with you that I could not fly my RV7 in circuits without an asi and gave the reason, ie not enough hours on the aircraft to be confident without an asi. My old Cessna, however is a different story, I had heaps of hours in that and rarely had to refer to the asi on final. Take the case of a recently tested aircraft, again factory produced that was used for training and had an asi that read 7 knots FAST at 70 knots.....7 knots. Now clearly this was not a problem for the owner who was very familiar with the aircraft, but he was using it for training new guys/gals. now the trainee is inexperienced and gets his licence and at about, say 30-40 hrs goes and flys his mates plane of the same type. He does as he is told and flys by the numbers. do you not see, at least, a potential problem here. If you dont then I give up, its become clear to me that at 30-40 hrs total time you were capable of flying the Space Shuttle by feel alone, but let me tell you, the skys are filled with people not as skilled as you.

Eddie Dean
God Damn. I will do it for 5K :}